Re: [gentoo-council] User Relations authority

[Mark Loeser]

Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o> said:
>
> On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 22:49 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > From this month's agenda:
> >
> >   User Relations authority
> >   ------------------------
> >
> >   Ferris asks: Does userrel have the authority to enforce the Code of
> >   Conduct on users in the same way devrel does for developers?
> >
> >   Preparation: Donnie will start a thread on the -council list. Post
> >   your opinion there. If everyone's posted in advance of the meeting,
> >   status check at meeting to see who's ready to vote.
> >
> >   Goal: Reach a decision on-list no later than July 17.
> >
> > Please respond with your thoughts.
>
> I didn't even remember that I had asked this, but here are my thoughts.
>
> 1.  Yes, Userrel has (or should have) that authority;

Cool, we agree that userrel has this authority.

> 2.  But for both devrel and userrel, the Code of Conduct loses almost
> all its impact unless response is immediate --- CoC's intent, I think,
> is to help keep the mailing lists and #gentoo-dev channel on track
> pretty much in real time.  I know this was the original idea behind it,
> and this was one reason we felt we needed people outside devrel to help
> enforce it (devrel is not set up for immediate responses);

I think we should then make it so that userrel and devrel have the
authority and/or power to respond immediately to problems in real time.
Why isn't devrel set up to respond to problems "real time"?

> 3.  Thus, I think bugzilla bugs for Code of Conduct violations miss much
> of the point.

If someone is abusing bugzilla to berate people, they should be
punished.

> 5.  I am not sure where the current Code of Conduct document is, but
> I'll volunteer to help update it to bring it into line with how we wish
> to use it and to help clarify who has what authority under it, and that
> sort of thing.  I have come to support it, and I'd like to help make it
> more effectively used in the rather narrow context for which it was
> designed before we consider extending its reach.

I'm not sure exactly what these statements mean.  Could you please
elaborate on how you support it currently?  And what sort of changes you
would like to avoid before you support the CoC further?

> 6.  For example, I think we could put some sort of limited moderation
> onto the -dev mailing list, citing the current Code of Conduct as
> authority, any time we wanted.  And I do not think the Code of Conduct
> as currently envisioned has much reach into the past (one or two days,
> probably; one or two weeks, perhaps; one or two months, no; one or two
> years, certainly not).

So you wish to limit the reach of its timeframe?  Could you please
elaborate on what you mean here?  I'm not sure what you are trying to
express.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Loeser
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email         -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://www.halcy0n.com