On 13:55 Thu 10 Jul , Ferris McCormick wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 11:49 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> > To summarize, my proposal was that we should have a method to "keep
> > away" people that do nothing but cause continuous issues - this is about
> > the "poisonous people" that are long-time and repeated offenders.
> > As I've stated back then "I believe that the greatest reward anyone can
> > have to participate in Gentoo is getting credit for work done on Gentoo.
> > As such, as a last measure, we must be ready to deny such contribution
> > from banned users."
>
> I don't think I've ever seen anyone at all who does nothing but
> continually causs "issues" and so qualifies as poisonous. We have a
> large community and everyone is abrasive at times, and everyone gets
> abuse at times (even me, but probably not from people you have in mind
> as "poisonous", if you have any). But I consider this just a normal
> part of doing business and can't imagine what it would take to get me
> to make a formal complaint about it.
>
> For example, I have had little contact with Linus Torvalds, but I have
> had a fair amount of contact with David Miller (davem --- the sparc
> kernel developer). I'm pretty sure that davem would seem more
> "poisonous" to us than anyone we've ever seen in Gentoo, and by
> reputation, Linus makes davem look like a pussy cat. (Although davem
> seems to be mellowing.) But I rather doubt that if for some reason
> either one started participating in Gentoo that we'd consider banning
> them or refusing their contributions. :)
I agree that the Linux kernel community has different standards and
expectations than the Gentoo community, and that's exactly the point.
You act within the context of your community. I don't care if people in
northern Canada practice cannibalism, it's not OK around these parts.
> > | 4. Here's what I think is meant by a complete ban. *These are only my
> > | own inferences from reading between the lines and trying to put
> > | different comments together in some coherent fashion.*
> > | Under some rather unclear conditions, some combination of
> > | devrel/userrel/trustees/infra could decide to impose a complete,
> > | permanent ban on a member (user or, I suppose developer) of our
> > | community. This would have the following effects:
> >
> > Some people seem to support that userrel can make such decisions on its
> > own. As I've stated, as an userrel member, I was willing to involve
> > other teams. We also need to agree to which body should appeals be sent.
>
> I would not support giving userrel that authority or userrel+devrel that
> authority. Now, I oppose this absolutely. But in general I don't thing
> any group(s) in gentoo should have such sweeping authority to make such
> major decisions secretely in private. If we want to impose such a ban
> on someone, we really should have the courage and resolve to work in
> public.
I dislike your use of emotional words to imply that anyone you disagree
with is cowardly.
> > My comment about this has always been that in extreme cases and if we
> > have a close partnership with upstream, we might want to share with them
> > our decision and let them judge for themselves if the actions that made
> > such person be banned on Gentoo are relevant to them or not.
> >
> Why? It's hardly our concern who participates upstream.
I agree with this, as I mentioned above with the context of the
community.
> > The point here is that such a decision is not terminal. If people feel
> > more comfortable about it, don't call it permanent bans, but call it a
> > ban until further notice.
>
> What's the practical difference? And why not make it something sensible
> and definite? The authority to lift an indefinite ban most likely rests
> with whoever imposed it in the first place, and that doesn't provide for
> much.
I dislike the implication that anything else is not sensible.
> > I assume what you mean here is that there would be no attempt of
> > mediation with said person. As my proposal states this is an *extreme*
> > decision meant only for *long-time* and *repeated* offenders. When we
> > get there, there's no possibility for mediation - that's something that
> > would have been tried a long time before we get there.
>
> See above. And as i said, I've never seen anyone who fits such a
> profile, so perhaps we're spending a lot of time here defining how we
> treat the empty set.
I think it's clear that your opinion does not necessarily represent the
opinions of everyone else in Gentoo, so arguing that your empty set is
Gentoo's empty set is not valid.
> > | 8. [Argument] I note that we are likely to institute some form of
> > | possible moderation for the gentoo-dev mailing list (presumably based on
> > | Code of Conduct violations), and if we do that, it effectively satisfies
> > | the intent of any absolute ban, but is not nearly so traumatic to the
> > | system. I note that this is a minority view among those who have
> > | discussed this.
> >
> > Ferris, I do hope the moderation will prevent so many abuses on the mls,
> > but it alone won't change people's mindsets and actions. Although posts
> > can be moderated, it doesn't mean that people will stop trying to send
> > abusive mails and that a few might even get to the lists. Also, it
> > doesn't address irc, bugzilla and other mediums abuse.
>
> If we have your hypothetical poisonous person running around loose
> somewhere and put him (or her) into a must-be-moderated list for
> gentoo-dev, the problem there should disappear because posts will be
> shunted to the moderators. #gentoo-dev is a more general concern than
> just a few specific people and falls generally under Code of Conduct for
> immediate correction. Bugzilla looks like a bigger problem than it is,
> because when it explodes it can be spectacular. But it is not limited
> to one or two people, either (even I have lost control on bugzilla, and
> I generally appear pretty calm and rational, I think).
I don't think moderation is the answer, because it's a very small group
of people who become regular, recurring problems.
> Jorge, you know, if you and I were both forced to come up with a list of
> five poisonous people to consider for application of such a ban, I
> suspect their intersection might be empty. What then?
>
> It is my view that both userrel and devrel may enforce the Code of
> Conduct,
I agree.
> but also Code of Conduct should be limited to quick response to
> immediate situations.
I do not agree. Just because something happened in the past does not
mean it never happened and should not be considered.
> I think devrel and userrel are the wrong bodies to be rooting around in
> the past if that's what you are proposing. Neither of us is set up to
> do that. We act on current behavior, and if discipline is warranted,
> then we can take to past behavior for guidance if we wish. I don't
> think anyone in Gentoo currently has the charter to look at the
> community and say "X has been causing trouble long enough --- let's just
> boot X." Nor do I think we want anyone to have such authority ---
> surely we're more tolerant and flexible than that.
Again I dislike your implications that anyone who would act on past
behavior is intolerant and inflexible. Please stop using implications
like this.
--
Thanks,
Donnie
Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
|
