1 |
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 02:43 -0400, Mark Loeser wrote: |
2 |
> Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o> said: |
3 |
> > |
4 |
> > On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 22:49 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
5 |
> > > From this month's agenda: |
6 |
> > > |
7 |
> > > User Relations authority |
8 |
> > > ------------------------ |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > Ferris asks: Does userrel have the authority to enforce the Code of |
11 |
> > > Conduct on users in the same way devrel does for developers? |
12 |
> > > |
13 |
> > > Preparation: Donnie will start a thread on the -council list. Post |
14 |
> > > your opinion there. If everyone's posted in advance of the meeting, |
15 |
> > > status check at meeting to see who's ready to vote. |
16 |
> > > |
17 |
> > > Goal: Reach a decision on-list no later than July 17. |
18 |
> > > |
19 |
> > > Please respond with your thoughts. |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > I didn't even remember that I had asked this, but here are my thoughts. |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > 1. Yes, Userrel has (or should have) that authority; |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Cool, we agree that userrel has this authority. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> > 2. But for both devrel and userrel, the Code of Conduct loses almost |
28 |
> > all its impact unless response is immediate --- CoC's intent, I think, |
29 |
> > is to help keep the mailing lists and #gentoo-dev channel on track |
30 |
> > pretty much in real time. I know this was the original idea behind it, |
31 |
> > and this was one reason we felt we needed people outside devrel to help |
32 |
> > enforce it (devrel is not set up for immediate responses); |
33 |
> |
34 |
> I think we should then make it so that userrel and devrel have the |
35 |
> authority and/or power to respond immediately to problems in real time. |
36 |
> Why isn't devrel set up to respond to problems "real time"? |
37 |
> |
38 |
|
39 |
Historical reasons and lack of resources, I think. As far as I know, we |
40 |
(devrel) have always reacted mostly to complaints and sometimes |
41 |
violations if we see them. But we generally don't look. You'd have to |
42 |
check with christel, kloeri, and the 2006 Council generally, but I think |
43 |
one reason for writing down the Code of Conduct and setting up the |
44 |
proctors was to provide an alternative to the rather slow but |
45 |
potentially serious devrel procedure for specific situations. Most day |
46 |
to day problems generally result just from loss of temper or personality |
47 |
conflicts, and for those we wanted a way to act immediately but not with |
48 |
starting up a lot of "machinery" or process. Thus, the proctors were |
49 |
supposed to take immediate action such as warnings, brief mediation, or |
50 |
perhaps brief suspensions. |
51 |
|
52 |
There was a fair amount of discussion about whether we should do this at |
53 |
all, and whether it should become a devrel function. Consensus was (1) |
54 |
we needed it; (2) it should be done outside of devrel. |
55 |
|
56 |
My original reaction was (1) No; (2) No. I was mistaken on (1), and I'm |
57 |
undecided on (2). I *think* in (2) I'd probably give it to userrel. As |
58 |
someone pointed out, developers are users, too, and Code of Conduct is |
59 |
supposed to apply uniformly across the board no matter who is in |
60 |
violation. Hence, userrel is probably better positioned to handle the |
61 |
brief, sharp exchanges to calm them down before they erupt. |
62 |
|
63 |
> > 3. Thus, I think bugzilla bugs for Code of Conduct violations miss much |
64 |
> > of the point. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> If someone is abusing bugzilla to berate people, they should be |
67 |
> punished. |
68 |
> |
69 |
|
70 |
I agree, I think, but you misunderstand me. What I meant to say was |
71 |
that if someone opens a bug complaining about a code of conduct |
72 |
violation, it's too late. Process has broken down, because if we are |
73 |
functioning correctly, most Code of Conduct violations should have been |
74 |
snipped off before they can reach the open-a-bug-for-devrel/userrel |
75 |
stage. |
76 |
|
77 |
> > 5. I am not sure where the current Code of Conduct document is, but |
78 |
> > I'll volunteer to help update it to bring it into line with how we wish |
79 |
> > to use it and to help clarify who has what authority under it, and that |
80 |
> > sort of thing. I have come to support it, and I'd like to help make it |
81 |
> > more effectively used in the rather narrow context for which it was |
82 |
> > designed before we consider extending its reach. |
83 |
> |
84 |
> I'm not sure exactly what these statements mean. Could you please |
85 |
> elaborate on how you support it currently? And what sort of changes you |
86 |
> would like to avoid before you support the CoC further? |
87 |
> |
88 |
|
89 |
By "support" I meant that I now agree with the principle behind it. I |
90 |
r4eally don't do much myself to enforce it, because I hardly ever see a |
91 |
violation soon enough to react to it. Everything else i said was out of |
92 |
ignorance --- I don't know the current state of much of anything |
93 |
regarding the Code of Conduct, but I am willing to help to make it a |
94 |
real tool we can use. |
95 |
|
96 |
> > 6. For example, I think we could put some sort of limited moderation |
97 |
> > onto the -dev mailing list, citing the current Code of Conduct as |
98 |
> > authority, any time we wanted. And I do not think the Code of Conduct |
99 |
> > as currently envisioned has much reach into the past (one or two days, |
100 |
> > probably; one or two weeks, perhaps; one or two months, no; one or two |
101 |
> > years, certainly not). |
102 |
> |
103 |
> So you wish to limit the reach of its timeframe? Could you please |
104 |
> elaborate on what you mean here? I'm not sure what you are trying to |
105 |
> express. |
106 |
> |
107 |
> Thanks, |
108 |
|
109 |
Sure. The Code of Conduct/Proctors structure was set up to handle |
110 |
problems as they occur. Others involved in the initial concept might |
111 |
have viewed it differently, but I always have viewed the whole idea to |
112 |
be simply to keep Gentoo as civil as practical on a day to day basis. |
113 |
True, repeated violations could result in increasingly severe sanctions. |
114 |
But the idea as I have always viewed it was to address today's fires |
115 |
today. Not yesterday's fires today, not today's fires tomorrow. This |
116 |
requires a quick reaction team, and that's what the proctors were for. |
117 |
|
118 |
Hope this helps, |
119 |
If I'm still confusing people, please just ping me. I'll try to clear |
120 |
up anything on IRC if you wish (but no need for any of this to be |
121 |
private; #gentoo-qa or #gentoo-userrel would either be fine). |
122 |
|
123 |
Regards, |
124 |
Ferris |
125 |
|
126 |
-- |
127 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
128 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |