RE: [gentoo-council] User Relations authority

[Chrissy Fullam]

> Mark Loeser wrote:
> > 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?
> > 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"?

I believe when fmccor states that 'devrel is not set up for immediate
responses' he is referring to the fact that devrel is a small team without
members in every major time zone. That alone makes it hard to have an
immediate reaction to something. For example fmccor and myself are in the
states, it is less likely that we will be actively online at 03h reading
-dev emails. Such a time would be more appropriately covered by a few folks
in the EU. An increase in recruiting that led to additional devrel staffing
would assist in this area so the problem is NOT without a resolution.

However I do disagree with fmccor on the topic of CoC is for only immediate
response to an action. Let's be realistic here, if you did something
yesterday it does not mean that it is no longer a bad thing and that your
slate should be wiped clean today. I see nothing wrong with pursuing an
issue that took place a few days ago. I would agree with fmccor if he meant
we should not wait four weeks to discuss with the person or suddenly punish
the person for a CoC violation that took place, for example, four weeks ago.
Though I see nothing wrong with talking to such a person and saying
something to effect of "look, that was wrong, you know it, do it again and
we may need to pursue disciplinary action."

> > 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.

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml
The link is readily available off the Council project page.

I appreciate fmccor's volunteering for doing the actual editing of the
document. I cant really understand what he means when he says we must revise
it before we consider modifying it, but suspect that was just a slip in
thinking. I agree that we should revise it as our needs change, which is
also why the disclaimer was put on that page to indicate that the document
would always be subject to growth and revision.
 
> > 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.

Makes sense.

> > 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.

Some things take time so let's think about this. Say someone is on vacation
and unresponsive to communication attempts for two weeks. Doesn't mean that
the attempts were not made nor that the person should come back and say "hey
it's been two weeks, you cant touch me now." There are lots of variables to
be considered and this is why the CoC was created the way it was, without
absolute clarity in every regard because doing so would have made it a 40
page document written in a legal sense that most of us wouldn't want to
read.


Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations