1 |
On 13:55 Thu 10 Jul , Ferris McCormick wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 11:49 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
3 |
> > To summarize, my proposal was that we should have a method to "keep |
4 |
> > away" people that do nothing but cause continuous issues - this is about |
5 |
> > the "poisonous people" that are long-time and repeated offenders. |
6 |
> > As I've stated back then "I believe that the greatest reward anyone can |
7 |
> > have to participate in Gentoo is getting credit for work done on Gentoo. |
8 |
> > As such, as a last measure, we must be ready to deny such contribution |
9 |
> > from banned users." |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I don't think I've ever seen anyone at all who does nothing but |
12 |
> continually causs "issues" and so qualifies as poisonous. We have a |
13 |
> large community and everyone is abrasive at times, and everyone gets |
14 |
> abuse at times (even me, but probably not from people you have in mind |
15 |
> as "poisonous", if you have any). But I consider this just a normal |
16 |
> part of doing business and can't imagine what it would take to get me |
17 |
> to make a formal complaint about it. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> For example, I have had little contact with Linus Torvalds, but I have |
20 |
> had a fair amount of contact with David Miller (davem --- the sparc |
21 |
> kernel developer). I'm pretty sure that davem would seem more |
22 |
> "poisonous" to us than anyone we've ever seen in Gentoo, and by |
23 |
> reputation, Linus makes davem look like a pussy cat. (Although davem |
24 |
> seems to be mellowing.) But I rather doubt that if for some reason |
25 |
> either one started participating in Gentoo that we'd consider banning |
26 |
> them or refusing their contributions. :) |
27 |
|
28 |
I agree that the Linux kernel community has different standards and |
29 |
expectations than the Gentoo community, and that's exactly the point. |
30 |
You act within the context of your community. I don't care if people in |
31 |
northern Canada practice cannibalism, it's not OK around these parts. |
32 |
|
33 |
> > | 4. Here's what I think is meant by a complete ban. *These are only my |
34 |
> > | own inferences from reading between the lines and trying to put |
35 |
> > | different comments together in some coherent fashion.* |
36 |
> > | Under some rather unclear conditions, some combination of |
37 |
> > | devrel/userrel/trustees/infra could decide to impose a complete, |
38 |
> > | permanent ban on a member (user or, I suppose developer) of our |
39 |
> > | community. This would have the following effects: |
40 |
> > |
41 |
> > Some people seem to support that userrel can make such decisions on its |
42 |
> > own. As I've stated, as an userrel member, I was willing to involve |
43 |
> > other teams. We also need to agree to which body should appeals be sent. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> I would not support giving userrel that authority or userrel+devrel that |
46 |
> authority. Now, I oppose this absolutely. But in general I don't thing |
47 |
> any group(s) in gentoo should have such sweeping authority to make such |
48 |
> major decisions secretely in private. If we want to impose such a ban |
49 |
> on someone, we really should have the courage and resolve to work in |
50 |
> public. |
51 |
|
52 |
I dislike your use of emotional words to imply that anyone you disagree |
53 |
with is cowardly. |
54 |
|
55 |
> > My comment about this has always been that in extreme cases and if we |
56 |
> > have a close partnership with upstream, we might want to share with them |
57 |
> > our decision and let them judge for themselves if the actions that made |
58 |
> > such person be banned on Gentoo are relevant to them or not. |
59 |
> > |
60 |
> Why? It's hardly our concern who participates upstream. |
61 |
|
62 |
I agree with this, as I mentioned above with the context of the |
63 |
community. |
64 |
|
65 |
> > The point here is that such a decision is not terminal. If people feel |
66 |
> > more comfortable about it, don't call it permanent bans, but call it a |
67 |
> > ban until further notice. |
68 |
> |
69 |
> What's the practical difference? And why not make it something sensible |
70 |
> and definite? The authority to lift an indefinite ban most likely rests |
71 |
> with whoever imposed it in the first place, and that doesn't provide for |
72 |
> much. |
73 |
|
74 |
I dislike the implication that anything else is not sensible. |
75 |
|
76 |
> > I assume what you mean here is that there would be no attempt of |
77 |
> > mediation with said person. As my proposal states this is an *extreme* |
78 |
> > decision meant only for *long-time* and *repeated* offenders. When we |
79 |
> > get there, there's no possibility for mediation - that's something that |
80 |
> > would have been tried a long time before we get there. |
81 |
> |
82 |
> See above. And as i said, I've never seen anyone who fits such a |
83 |
> profile, so perhaps we're spending a lot of time here defining how we |
84 |
> treat the empty set. |
85 |
|
86 |
I think it's clear that your opinion does not necessarily represent the |
87 |
opinions of everyone else in Gentoo, so arguing that your empty set is |
88 |
Gentoo's empty set is not valid. |
89 |
|
90 |
> > | 8. [Argument] I note that we are likely to institute some form of |
91 |
> > | possible moderation for the gentoo-dev mailing list (presumably based on |
92 |
> > | Code of Conduct violations), and if we do that, it effectively satisfies |
93 |
> > | the intent of any absolute ban, but is not nearly so traumatic to the |
94 |
> > | system. I note that this is a minority view among those who have |
95 |
> > | discussed this. |
96 |
> > |
97 |
> > Ferris, I do hope the moderation will prevent so many abuses on the mls, |
98 |
> > but it alone won't change people's mindsets and actions. Although posts |
99 |
> > can be moderated, it doesn't mean that people will stop trying to send |
100 |
> > abusive mails and that a few might even get to the lists. Also, it |
101 |
> > doesn't address irc, bugzilla and other mediums abuse. |
102 |
> |
103 |
> If we have your hypothetical poisonous person running around loose |
104 |
> somewhere and put him (or her) into a must-be-moderated list for |
105 |
> gentoo-dev, the problem there should disappear because posts will be |
106 |
> shunted to the moderators. #gentoo-dev is a more general concern than |
107 |
> just a few specific people and falls generally under Code of Conduct for |
108 |
> immediate correction. Bugzilla looks like a bigger problem than it is, |
109 |
> because when it explodes it can be spectacular. But it is not limited |
110 |
> to one or two people, either (even I have lost control on bugzilla, and |
111 |
> I generally appear pretty calm and rational, I think). |
112 |
|
113 |
I don't think moderation is the answer, because it's a very small group |
114 |
of people who become regular, recurring problems. |
115 |
|
116 |
> Jorge, you know, if you and I were both forced to come up with a list of |
117 |
> five poisonous people to consider for application of such a ban, I |
118 |
> suspect their intersection might be empty. What then? |
119 |
> |
120 |
> It is my view that both userrel and devrel may enforce the Code of |
121 |
> Conduct, |
122 |
|
123 |
I agree. |
124 |
|
125 |
> but also Code of Conduct should be limited to quick response to |
126 |
> immediate situations. |
127 |
|
128 |
I do not agree. Just because something happened in the past does not |
129 |
mean it never happened and should not be considered. |
130 |
|
131 |
> I think devrel and userrel are the wrong bodies to be rooting around in |
132 |
> the past if that's what you are proposing. Neither of us is set up to |
133 |
> do that. We act on current behavior, and if discipline is warranted, |
134 |
> then we can take to past behavior for guidance if we wish. I don't |
135 |
> think anyone in Gentoo currently has the charter to look at the |
136 |
> community and say "X has been causing trouble long enough --- let's just |
137 |
> boot X." Nor do I think we want anyone to have such authority --- |
138 |
> surely we're more tolerant and flexible than that. |
139 |
|
140 |
Again I dislike your implications that anyone who would act on past |
141 |
behavior is intolerant and inflexible. Please stop using implications |
142 |
like this. |
143 |
|
144 |
-- |
145 |
Thanks, |
146 |
Donnie |
147 |
|
148 |
Donnie Berkholz |
149 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
150 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |