1 |
On 13:12 Thu 08 Nov , Ferris McCormick wrote: |
2 |
> This is a big step forward, and if we had a binary situation: either |
3 |
> accept it as written or go back to the drawing board, I'd prefer to |
4 |
> accept. Thus my comments which follow are best viewed as requests for |
5 |
> clarification or of personal inclination. |
6 |
|
7 |
Thanks for your comments, and I want to reiterate that we certainly do |
8 |
not have a binary situation in that respect. What we do have is |
9 |
preliminary text that could use suggestions like yours. =) |
10 |
|
11 |
> 1. Are 3 (or 5) people sufficient to ensure quick reactions to mailing |
12 |
> list questions or IRC? This is minor, and starting with 3 to put the |
13 |
> process in place and tune it as needed probably works. My concern is |
14 |
> longer term. Speaking for myself, for instance, I almost never see |
15 |
> problems on IRC until they are long over, and I suspect this is the case |
16 |
> for most people. Similarly (usually) with mail. And I don't think we |
17 |
> want a corps of full-time monitors. |
18 |
|
19 |
I understand your point, which amne also brought up. My main concerns |
20 |
with a larger group are that it will be unable to maintain a cohesive |
21 |
view of the CoC and that anyone who feels like it can join up. |
22 |
|
23 |
> 2. As to forums, I've never seen that the forum moderators need any |
24 |
> help with what they are doing. Actually, in a sense I think the forums |
25 |
> are kind of a model for what you are proposing. |
26 |
|
27 |
I agree. Should we add a note that already-moderated places (#gentoo, |
28 |
forums) should not need additional moderation? |
29 |
|
30 |
> 3. I note that most actions are very short term, so if things are |
31 |
> working as they should, the lead (or council) will seldom or never get |
32 |
> involved in the day to day process. I think this is a huge plus for |
33 |
> your proposal! |
34 |
|
35 |
Yep, it's hard to act quickly if you're sitting around waiting for a |
36 |
lead in another time zone to show up. |
37 |
|
38 |
> 4. I learned from talking to some of the proctors that they did |
39 |
> generally work in private. It would be useful perhaps to see how |
40 |
> closely the bulk of what they did conformed to your proposal (as opposed |
41 |
> to how previous Council perceived them). And of course where it |
42 |
> diverged. (I am addressing the last sentence of the first paragraph of |
43 |
> the "implementation" section here, and just raising a question.) |
44 |
|
45 |
I would also enjoy hearing from past proctors. From my POV, where things |
46 |
started to fall apart is where they started (a) acting publicly and (b) |
47 |
dropping to the level of those they should be taking action against. |
48 |
|
49 |
> 5. Do you perceive the enforcement group as an arm of the Council |
50 |
> rather than as a group of its own? Previously, the Council did not seem |
51 |
> to know what to do when the Proctors' views of Code of Conduct and |
52 |
> Councils' *individual* views of Code of Conduct seemed to diverge. This |
53 |
> led to the unusual step of simply eliminating the Proctors. I rather |
54 |
> doubt that you would find much enthusiasm for working in such an |
55 |
> environment again. So, what you are proposing probably works for any |
56 |
> given Council (assuming continuing commitment from council to council). |
57 |
> I think my concern is addressed to (a) continuing commitment; (b) |
58 |
> consistency and continuity. The Gentoo community need to understand the |
59 |
> rules so that they become a part of our culture, so that even with |
60 |
> annual assessment, we should expect evolution rather than catastrophe. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> (This was all a bit muddled. That's sure indication that so are my |
63 |
> thoughts, so take it for what it's worth.) |
64 |
> |
65 |
> 6. "Developers can be members of both [Council and Code of Conduct |
66 |
> team]." This is the one sentence I take exception to. It's better to |
67 |
> work for more community involvement rather than allow concentration |
68 |
> resulting in personnel wearing multiple hats. |
69 |
|
70 |
The above two points tie together, in my mind. It would be preferable to |
71 |
have at least one of the team members be on council to ensure that their |
72 |
CoC interpretations are consistent. |
73 |
|
74 |
That gave me a new idea. What if the first 2-4 weeks, the team did not |
75 |
actually take any action but just documented what its actions would have |
76 |
been? This would give people a feeling for what level of enforcement |
77 |
we'd see for the CoC. |
78 |
|
79 |
> 7. Off the top of my head, why not allow (or require) that one member |
80 |
> of the team be a user but not a developer? Userrel, all, comments? |
81 |
|
82 |
If we could find a user with a strong enough grasp of Gentoo culture, |
83 |
I'm open to the idea, and I'd like to make any users adjunct staff |
84 |
members during their term to avoid that annoying "Users don't have power |
85 |
over me" syndrome. |
86 |
|
87 |
Thanks, |
88 |
Donnie |
89 |
-- |
90 |
gentoo-council@g.o mailing list |