1 |
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 02:34 -0400, Mark Loeser wrote: |
2 |
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> said: |
3 |
> > Can people be entirely banned from Gentoo? |
4 |
> |
5 |
> It would be ideal, but not technically feasible. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > - What would such a ban include? Some ideas -- the person could not: |
8 |
> > - Post to any gentoo mailing list; |
9 |
> > - Post to gentoo bugzilla; |
10 |
> > - Participate in #gentoo- IRC channels; |
11 |
> |
12 |
> All of these seem to be possible to an extent and would be valid if we |
13 |
> would like to limit the damage an individual does to the community. |
14 |
> |
15 |
|
16 |
Perhaps you could ban a name (like fmccor), But if I reappeared just as |
17 |
Ferris@××××××××××××××××××××.pro, that would be harder. Ferris is not |
18 |
all that unusual last name, and not unique as a first name (it's Celtic) |
19 |
--- think of "Ferris Buehler's day off." So, you might be convinced |
20 |
it's really me, but if by mistake you banned Ferris Buehler, you'd have |
21 |
a problem. (Just an unethical lawyer, not the poisonous fmccor. :) ) |
22 |
|
23 |
> > - Contribute to gentoo (hence my corner case of a security fix) except |
24 |
> > perhaps through a proxy; |
25 |
> |
26 |
> This would be difficult to control, and I don't think we should care in |
27 |
> this case. If they are contributing through a proxy (say Linus), should |
28 |
> we reject their fix? |
29 |
> |
30 |
> > - Why would we do it? |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Because they are damaging the community and driving possible |
33 |
> contributors aways. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> > - Under whose authority would it happen? |
36 |
> |
37 |
> Devrel and/or userrel |
38 |
> |
39 |
> > - Would it be reversible? What conditions would cause this? |
40 |
> |
41 |
> This would be something I would like to hear opinions from userrel and |
42 |
> devrel on. Do they think someone that we would want to ban permanently |
43 |
> would turn around enough to unban? |
44 |
> |
45 |
|
46 |
Sure. Everyone changes. |
47 |
|
48 |
> > Since the banned person couldn't participate in Gentoo, we'd never |
49 |
> > know whether anything changed. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> Refer to my comment above. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> > - How would one appeal this? Would there be a chance to respond before |
54 |
> > the ban? |
55 |
> |
56 |
> If it got to the point of us considering a permanent ban, I don't think |
57 |
> there is any reason to even consider listening to an appeal at that |
58 |
> point. With that being said, I would expect a permanent ban to be a |
59 |
> majority vote from devrel or userrel to put such a ban in place. |
60 |
> |
61 |
|
62 |
Let's see, devrel population is about 8 or 9; userrel is smaller, I |
63 |
think. That's a tremendous amount of power in the hands of very few |
64 |
developers, most of whom participate in these groups for reasons |
65 |
unrelated to discipline as such (most of devrel is taken up with |
66 |
recruiting people, retiring people, or documentation). Further more, |
67 |
unless we are considering imposing permanent bans on developers, it's |
68 |
hard for me to see devrel's interest in such a process. |
69 |
|
70 |
And you are saying that Council hears appeals of disciplinary actions |
71 |
(GLEP 39), except in the case of the most severe action possible? |
72 |
|
73 |
> > - Would moderating the gentoo-dev mailing list obsolete this concept? |
74 |
> |
75 |
> I don't think so. |
76 |
> |
77 |
Why not? No one has explained that in a way I can comprehend. Perhaps |
78 |
I'm slow, but I just don't see it. Having watched gentoo-dev@ over the |
79 |
last few weeks, I conclude that usually the moderators would have |
80 |
nothing to do in fact. Almost all the time everything is pretty calm, |
81 |
in fact. We have problems when someone says something provocative and |
82 |
someone else way overreacts, and things spiral out of control. |
83 |
|
84 |
Regards, |
85 |
Ferris |
86 |
-- |
87 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
88 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |