Re: [gentoo-council] User Relations authority

[Alec Warner]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o> wrote:
> I'm CC-ing gentoo-project on this, because some Council members and
> perhaps others seemed to indicate a preference for moving the discussion
> there.  This response turns out to be much longer than I had intended
> because I always try to follow my reasoning to see where it goes,
> whether I like the conclusions or not.
>
> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 21:54 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> On 12:26 Thu 10 Jul     , Ferris McCormick wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 22:49 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> > 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);
>>
>> The concepts of poisonous people and repeat offenders are explicitly
>> mentioned numerous times in the 20070308 council meeting. Here are some
>> examples:
>>
>> <wolf31o2|mobile> kloeri: banning people from the lists, not
>> necessarily... but reducing the requirements on devrel to suspend
>> "repeat offenders" might just make them think about their actions before
>> doing them, and that could decrease the flames a bit
>>
>> <kloeri> there's some devs that are persistently poisoning the project
>> that I want to deal with but that's not just related to mailinglists
>>
>> <wolf31o2|mobile> christel: agreed... I think we need to be a bit more
>> strict on our developers... after all, in the flames involving users,
>> developers are just as much at fault as the users... perhaps if the devs
>> didn't respond in kind, the flames would subside much quicker, etc
>>
>> <kloeri> I don't want to ban anybody but I do want to be much harder on
>> devs poisoning things consistently and I'm going to file at least one
>> devrel bug in that regard
>>
>> <kloeri> I don't think we can force people to follow netiquette in
>> general but we can do more to smack devs up when they're constantly
>> being a pain in the ass
>>
>>
>> On the topic of userrel's power to ban people from lists, which is a
>> long-term action:
>>
>> <robbat2> on the side of devrel not having 'teeth' - kloeri mentioned
>> before that infra previously wasn't very responsive to requests to do
>> things (he cited a userrel request to remove user from the ML)
>>
>> <christel> i have a question, if we are to start enforcing etiquette
>> policy, i think we may want to ensure we have one which also cover users
>>
>> > 4.  That is, we (devrel, userrel, averyone else perhaps) should use Code
>> > of Conduct to stop elaborate flame wars before they can burn out of
>> > control.  Whether a flame war ever merits a bug will vary from situation
>> > to situation, but generally if we have a flame war and wish to impose
>> > some sort of sanctions because of it, we really need to be hitting
>> > several people or none with warnings or brief "vacations."
>>
>> I agree that we should attempt to take short-term actions in response to
>> immediate offenses.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> On the topic of trying to write down every possible way to go about
>> this, I also agree with them:
>>
>> <g2boojum> christel: I actually think you want it to be more vague than
>> specific.  "Don't be a jerk."  Please don't define "jerk", or you get a
>> five-page treatise on why the bahavior doesn't really fit the
>> definition.
>>
>> <seemant> we really need to be careful in adopting document upon
>> document upon document
>>
>
> I note two things.  (1) As I read this, no one here is arguing for
> anything like a permanent ban; (2) The main thrust in this appears to
> address *poisonous developers* except for christel who advocates
> including non-developer users as well.  And I don't see anything
> suggesting that wolf31o2/kloeri/christel/seemant are discussing
> permanent action, although I don't have the complete context.
>
> So, I don't think I have any argument with
> wolf31o2/kloeri/christel/seemant here, but I think what you cited
> *supports* my view.  Let me quote kloeri again, because he seems to be
> the strictest among them:
>
> <kloeri>:   there's some devs that are persistently poisoning the
>  project that I want to deal with but that's not just related to
> mailinglists
>
> <kloeri>: I don't want to ban anybody but I do want to be much harder
>  on devs poisoning things consistently and I'm going to file at least
>  one devrel bug in that regard
>  ....
>
> In case you are misunderstanding me (well, from you other response I
> know you are;  I'll try to address that once again below):  I don't mind
> being more vague than specific (I don't ask for a definition of "Don't
> be a jerk", really).  My concern goes more to who determines "jerk-ness"
> and what we do about it.  And it bothers me a lot that a small number of
> people believe themselves qualified to make that decision in secret.
> Code of Conduct seems to require that the people applying it are
> actively working with the "jerks" involved.  Even kloeri said he was
> opening a bug on some developer for all to see.

So to play the other side; if not *rel to determine 'jerk-ness' who would it be?

You speak of secrecy where I don't think anyone intends any (well
perhaps a few do; but
I humbly expect them to not get their way).

>
> As for seemant's "document on document" --- I agree.  But I do insist
> that our policy documents reflect what we can do and why.  Nothing in
> our current documentation that I can see indicates that we should have a
> group of people rooting through our archives in order to put together a
> case for imposing a permanent ban on someone, and if you are really
> suggesting any such thing, *something* needs to be updated in order to
> put the community on notice.

I find this under the realm of existing abilities of the *rel groups;
but feel free to stop talking about it
and just update the damn docs if you are concerned; feel free to email
the diff to the parties involved.
I'm sure if there is a disagreement with wording it can be worked out.

>
> There's a difference between "document on document" and a real change in
> policy/procedure without and document changes at all.
>
> Please resist the urge to dismiss my description as ad hominum.  When I
> say "root through the archives" I realize that that is not a neutral
> description of what people have in mind.  But I think it is completely
> accurate.

Yes, worst case and all that.

>
> ====================================================================
> Now, I'm going to change the topic slightly and explain what I think the
> context of Jorge's proposals is.  I ask him to set me straight if I'm
> getting it wrong.
>
> As I understand it, these proposals fit into the context of the Code of
> Conduct, and no matter what you say, I am certain that the Code of
> Conduct was put in place to address problems as they occur in order cut
> off and prevent brush fires.  In this context, his permanent ban
> proposals would be the final sanction after quite a long run of working
> with someone through the Code of Conduct itself.  And I have never seen
> anything suggesting nor anyone proposing that the Code of Conduct has a
> long reach into the past to apply to someone now.  Code of Conduct
> addresses current conduct; it does not address past conduct except in
> the context of what is going on now.  I ask Roy or Jorge please to
> correct me on this.
>
> So, if we were to add Jorge's proposals to the Code of Conduct, they
> would fall into that context, and would never come into play at all
> unless triggered by some sequence of Code of Conduct violations starting
> at the time they were adopted.  Personally, I would probably not support
> that, but you might be able to talk me around.
>
> Now, as I have said, I think providing for moderating the -dev mailing
> list fits much more neatly into the Code of Conduct, and I had thought
> we would have this in place by now (although the push for that seems to
> have died --- it's sort of funny that right now I'm the one pushing it).
> As I see it, this would give us the option of shunting all posts from
> someone to a group of moderators who would either pass the posts or
> bounce them with an explanation.  We already do this on at least one of
> our mailing lists (gentoo-dev-announce?) so it is nothing new and it
> works well in the Code of Conduct context.  It also solves the problem
> of future posts from "poisonous people."

Moderating -dev has not died.  However our mailing list software needs
some features
added and neither I nor robbat2 has implemented them yet.

>
> Donnie suggests elsewhere that moderation is not the answer because the
> number of "poisonous people" is small and the group tends to be the
> same, but I don't understand the point.  All that says is that the list
> of people being moderated would be pretty static.  To that I answer (1)
> So what?  Does it matter that the moderators have a static list rather
> than a dynamic one? (2) That's invalid anyway because we've never tried
> it.  We don't know how anyone would react to constant requests to modify
> a post.  So to reject a solution to a perceived problem because "we know
> it won't work" even though it fits nicely into the Code of Conduct and
> instead put in place a policy of pre-emptively banning so-called trouble
> makers strikes me as ill-conceived and premature.
>
> Oh, yes.  I'm going to stand by my statement that imposing permanent
> bans in secret without involving the parties involved is cowardly.  If
> we are willing to take such extreme measures against people, we should
> be willing to face them to discuss the problems and to negotiate less
> extreme alternatives.  It's easy to write an email to someone saying
> "You're banned from all things Gentoo";  it's somewhat harder to talk to
> that person about it.

You imply that no one will talk to the bannee about his/her problems
and I believe
that to be wholly false.

>
> I'm also going to stand by my statements that the intent behind the Code
> of Conduct has always been to provide a way to react quickly to problems
> as they unfold.  This is not explicit in the Code of Conduct, but I
> think it is a fair inference from the discussions leading up to it.  I
> ask Roy or Jorge to correct me if I am wrong.  Or we could just ask
> Christel; she wrote it and she knows what she had in mind.  (Actually, I
> guess I'll ask Christel if no one else does.)

The Code of Conduct was to stop people from being dicks and to spell out what
we as the community expect out of our members.  I don't think your
statements are correct.

>
> Regards,
> Ferris
> --
> Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)
>
-- 
gentoo-council@l.g.o mailing list