1.1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2008.07.11 13:47, Ferris McCormick wrote:
[snip]
> ====================================================================
> 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.
[snip]

All,

- From memory, the CoC was not intended to change *rels authority or 
scope of action in any way at all. It was intended to document some 
behaviours that anyone at all could use as a reference to remind other 
participants in a medium that they we not behaving as other users had a

right to expect. I recall it was based on some of the concepts behind 
freenodes catalyst idea.

See dberkholzs' earlier ideas on CoC enforcement - anyone can do it.

There was no statute of limitations implied with the creation of the 
CoC. While the CoC was being drafted, it was recognised that many CoC 
breaches come from anger/emotion/misunderstandings and their writers 
not sleeping on a post before they make it. 
It was also recognised that *rel take in comparison to these 
outbursts, a long time to act. The Proctors was created at the same 
time as the CoC as a rapid reaction group to deal with rapidly 
developing situations and calm things down, leaving *rel to deal with 
the persistent offenders in slower time as they always had done.

In short, the publishing of the CoC changed nothing, it only documented
something that had always been implied previously. 

Note that the Forums mods and #gentoo channel ops had been enforcing 
the standards in the CoC long before it was written. It follows that 
the CoC is just documenting a part of what had been Gentoos' common 
law. 

- -- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
treecleaners
trustees
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkh3bI0ACgkQTE4/y7nJvatqlwCdF2Revmxj0s9PYyBqu5MIVpX7
fKYAoP1zykLd9CI71nKINs9QJlmzyoU8
=0Fg9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-council@g.o mailing list