1 |
Sorry, this is long. I hate long emails but find the topic to be one |
2 |
warranting discussion. |
3 |
|
4 |
<snip out Council log comments> |
5 |
> I note two things. (1) As I read this, no one here is arguing for |
6 |
> anything like a permanent ban; (2) The main thrust in this appears to |
7 |
> address *poisonous developers* except for christel who advocates including |
8 |
> non-developer users as well. And I don't see anything suggesting that |
9 |
> wolf31o2/kloeri/christel/seemant are discussing permanent action, although |
10 |
> I don't have the complete context. |
11 |
|
12 |
Lack of an idea previously does not nullify the validity of the idea now. |
13 |
They were however discussing the root cause, repeat offenders who continued |
14 |
to have negative effects on the community and isn't that at the heart of the |
15 |
matter here? |
16 |
|
17 |
> So, I don't think I have any argument with |
18 |
> wolf31o2/kloeri/christel/seemant here, but I think what you cited |
19 |
> *supports* my view. Let me quote kloeri again, because he seems to be the |
20 |
> strictest among them: |
21 |
> |
22 |
> <kloeri>: there's some devs that are persistently poisoning the |
23 |
> project that I want to deal with but that's not just related to |
24 |
> mailinglists |
25 |
|
26 |
I read 'not just' to mean not exclusive, as in people do it in places other |
27 |
than solely on mailing lists, such as IRC channels perhaps. |
28 |
|
29 |
> My concern goes more to who determines "jerk-ness" |
30 |
> and what we do about it. And it bothers me a lot that a small number of |
31 |
> people believe themselves qualified to make that decision in secret. |
32 |
|
33 |
Not sure who said they wanted to make any such decisions in secret. As an |
34 |
active participant in this discussion since the beginning I know secrecy was |
35 |
not my intent. |
36 |
|
37 |
> Code of Conduct seems to require that the people applying it are actively |
38 |
> working with the "jerks" involved. Even kloeri said he was opening a bug |
39 |
> on some developer for all to see. |
40 |
|
41 |
<kloeri>: I don't want to ban anybody but I do want to be much harder on |
42 |
devs poisoning things consistently and I'm going to file at least one devrel |
43 |
bug in that regard .... |
44 |
|
45 |
Actually fmccor, kloeri did not state for all to see. He could have opened a |
46 |
private bug and closed it for only Dev Rel to see for example. That would |
47 |
also fit with his above quote. |
48 |
|
49 |
> Nothing in our |
50 |
> current documentation that I can see indicates that we should have a group |
51 |
> of people rooting through our archives in order to put together a case for |
52 |
> imposing a permanent ban on someone, and if you are really suggesting any |
53 |
> such thing, *something* needs to be updated in order to put the community |
54 |
> on notice. |
55 |
|
56 |
I think if someone were to be rooting through archives it would be to |
57 |
supplement a case, not base one solely on something that happened long ago. |
58 |
If it were last week I would not consider that to be rooting through |
59 |
archives, personally last week's emails are readily accessible. |
60 |
|
61 |
> As I understand it, these proposals fit into the context of the Code of |
62 |
> Conduct, and no matter what you say, I am certain that the Code of Conduct |
63 |
> was put in place to address problems as they occur in order cut off and |
64 |
> prevent brush fires. |
65 |
|
66 |
As someone who was regularly consulted by Council for the creation and |
67 |
editing of the original CoC I feel I can appropriately comment here. It was |
68 |
not put in place to only handle something that just happened, it simply was |
69 |
not deemed a relevant point of discussion as we felt people were competent |
70 |
enough to make appropriate decisions. Its intent was to be put in place as |
71 |
an extension of Dev Rel policy and to be applied to developers and users |
72 |
alike. The discussion regarding time as I recall was limited to how we would |
73 |
not want to apply it to someone who since changed his/her ways in their |
74 |
communications and made the desired improvements... such an act would then |
75 |
be vengeful. |
76 |
|
77 |
> In this context, his permanent ban proposals would |
78 |
> be the final sanction after quite a long run of working with someone |
79 |
> through the Code of Conduct itself. |
80 |
|
81 |
It was not designed to replace common sense nor to nullify previous efforts |
82 |
if they were made after this lovely document; if anything it was deemed the |
83 |
documentation of what was perceived to be common sense when we found that |
84 |
sense may not be as common as we would have liked. ;-) |
85 |
|
86 |
> Now, as I have said, I think providing for moderating the -dev mailing |
87 |
> list fits much more neatly into the Code of Conduct, and I had thought we |
88 |
> would have this in place by now |
89 |
|
90 |
These are two separate items and both are good solid items for discussion. |
91 |
Discussing one does not mean the other is not relevant or desirable. |
92 |
|
93 |
>(although the push for that seems to have |
94 |
> died --- it's sort of funny that right now I'm the one pushing it). |
95 |
|
96 |
Not dead in the least. As I understood it infra was looking into the |
97 |
practical implementation though can appreciate the confusion as we rather |
98 |
froze the 'who should moderate' discussion after realizing that many of us |
99 |
could not agree on the who... though tsunam and myself as User Rel and Dev |
100 |
Rel leads did say that we would be more than willing to discuss implementing |
101 |
the tasks into our respective groups as a collaborative effort. |
102 |
|
103 |
> Donnie suggests elsewhere that moderation is not the answer because the |
104 |
> number of "poisonous people" is small and the group tends to be the same, |
105 |
> but I don't understand the point. |
106 |
|
107 |
I recall Donnie being in favor of both moderation as well as banning. Donnie |
108 |
can comment best to his views though. |
109 |
|
110 |
> All that says is that the list of |
111 |
> people being moderated would be pretty static. To that I answer (1) So |
112 |
> what? Does it matter that the moderators have a static list rather than a |
113 |
> dynamic one? |
114 |
|
115 |
Sure it does, in the sense that a repeat offender should be reviewed as to |
116 |
why we allow them to take up our time instead of following processes that we |
117 |
are currently discussing to put in place in conjunction with the moderation. |
118 |
|
119 |
> (2) That's invalid anyway because we've never tried it. |
120 |
|
121 |
It's not invalid. It's why we talk about ways to implement things. As you |
122 |
likely agree, policies and documents require updating so let's talk about |
123 |
different ways and determine the one we wish to try. Nothing is concrete. |
124 |
One doesn't work, try another. We're fluid like that. |
125 |
|
126 |
> Oh, yes. I'm going to stand by my statement that imposing permanent bans |
127 |
> in secret without involving the parties involved is cowardly. |
128 |
|
129 |
Who the heck said they wanted to do everything in private? I'm not even sure |
130 |
where you got this notion from, though you have used it repeatedly on this |
131 |
and similar threads and that's the only reference I can find. If I'm missing |
132 |
something, please tell me. |
133 |
|
134 |
> I'm also going to stand by my statements that the intent behind the Code |
135 |
> of Conduct has always been to provide a way to react quickly to problems |
136 |
> as they unfold. ... Or we could just ask Christel; she |
137 |
> wrote it and she knows what she had in mind. (Actually, I guess I'll ask |
138 |
> Christel if no one else does.) |
139 |
|
140 |
Actually while Christel undoubtedly worked hard, this is not how this |
141 |
happened at all. A group consisting largely of Council but some external |
142 |
parties... hell I even brought in a professional PR person as part of the |
143 |
process... held the discussion and Christel was elected to draft up the |
144 |
thoughts and agreed upon ideas into a more comprehensive document which the |
145 |
group agreed to name Code of Conduct. |
146 |
|
147 |
|
148 |
Kind regards, |
149 |
Christina Fullam |
150 |
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations |
151 |
|
152 |
|
153 |
|
154 |
|
155 |
-- |
156 |
gentoo-council@l.g.o mailing list |