1 |
Top posting ... I agree with dberkholz in every comment. |
2 |
|
3 |
Let's try to leave such strong emotions and implications at the door while |
4 |
we appreciate that everyone can have an opinion but said opinion is their |
5 |
own or potentially that of a small group. None of us speaks for everyone and |
6 |
we'll never reach 100% community agreement on any topic. Council was however |
7 |
elected by the developers so while they cannot speak for everyone perhaps I |
8 |
should clarify that they can make decisions on our behalf and I for one |
9 |
appreciate that they value our thoughts. :) |
10 |
|
11 |
Kind regards, |
12 |
Christina Fullam |
13 |
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations |
14 |
|
15 |
|
16 |
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
17 |
> On 13:55 Thu 10 Jul , Ferris McCormick wrote: |
18 |
> > On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 11:49 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
19 |
> > > To summarize, my proposal was that we should have a method to "keep |
20 |
> > > away" people that do nothing but cause continuous issues - this is |
21 |
> > > about the "poisonous people" that are long-time and repeated |
22 |
> offenders. |
23 |
> > > As I've stated back then "I believe that the greatest reward anyone |
24 |
> > > can have to participate in Gentoo is getting credit for work done on |
25 |
> Gentoo. |
26 |
> > > As such, as a last measure, we must be ready to deny such |
27 |
> > > contribution from banned users." |
28 |
> > |
29 |
> > I don't think I've ever seen anyone at all who does nothing but |
30 |
> > continually causs "issues" and so qualifies as poisonous. We have a |
31 |
> > large community and everyone is abrasive at times, and everyone gets |
32 |
> > abuse at times (even me, but probably not from people you have in mind |
33 |
> > as "poisonous", if you have any). But I consider this just a normal |
34 |
> > part of doing business and can't imagine what it would take to get me |
35 |
> > to make a formal complaint about it. |
36 |
> > |
37 |
> > For example, I have had little contact with Linus Torvalds, but I have |
38 |
> > had a fair amount of contact with David Miller (davem --- the sparc |
39 |
> > kernel developer). I'm pretty sure that davem would seem more |
40 |
> > "poisonous" to us than anyone we've ever seen in Gentoo, and by |
41 |
> > reputation, Linus makes davem look like a pussy cat. (Although davem |
42 |
> > seems to be mellowing.) But I rather doubt that if for some reason |
43 |
> > either one started participating in Gentoo that we'd consider banning |
44 |
> > them or refusing their contributions. :) |
45 |
> |
46 |
> I agree that the Linux kernel community has different standards and |
47 |
> expectations than the Gentoo community, and that's exactly the point. |
48 |
> You act within the context of your community. I don't care if people in |
49 |
> northern Canada practice cannibalism, it's not OK around these parts. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> > > | 4. Here's what I think is meant by a complete ban. *These are |
52 |
> > > | only my own inferences from reading between the lines and trying |
53 |
> > > | to put different comments together in some coherent fashion.* |
54 |
> > > | Under some rather unclear conditions, some combination of |
55 |
> > > | devrel/userrel/trustees/infra could decide to impose a |
56 |
> complete, |
57 |
> > > | permanent ban on a member (user or, I suppose developer) of our |
58 |
> > > | community. This would have the following effects: |
59 |
> > > |
60 |
> > > Some people seem to support that userrel can make such decisions on |
61 |
> > > its own. As I've stated, as an userrel member, I was willing to |
62 |
> > > involve other teams. We also need to agree to which body should |
63 |
> appeals be sent. |
64 |
> > |
65 |
> > I would not support giving userrel that authority or userrel+devrel |
66 |
> > that authority. Now, I oppose this absolutely. But in general I |
67 |
> > don't thing any group(s) in gentoo should have such sweeping authority |
68 |
> > to make such major decisions secretely in private. If we want to |
69 |
> > impose such a ban on someone, we really should have the courage and |
70 |
> > resolve to work in public. |
71 |
> |
72 |
> I dislike your use of emotional words to imply that anyone you disagree |
73 |
> with is cowardly. |
74 |
> |
75 |
> > > My comment about this has always been that in extreme cases and if |
76 |
> > > we have a close partnership with upstream, we might want to share |
77 |
> > > with them our decision and let them judge for themselves if the |
78 |
> > > actions that made such person be banned on Gentoo are relevant to them |
79 |
> or not. |
80 |
> > > |
81 |
> > Why? It's hardly our concern who participates upstream. |
82 |
> |
83 |
> I agree with this, as I mentioned above with the context of the community. |
84 |
> |
85 |
> > > The point here is that such a decision is not terminal. If people |
86 |
> > > feel more comfortable about it, don't call it permanent bans, but |
87 |
> > > call it a ban until further notice. |
88 |
> > |
89 |
> > What's the practical difference? And why not make it something |
90 |
> > sensible and definite? The authority to lift an indefinite ban most |
91 |
> > likely rests with whoever imposed it in the first place, and that |
92 |
> > doesn't provide for much. |
93 |
> |
94 |
> I dislike the implication that anything else is not sensible. |
95 |
> |
96 |
> > > I assume what you mean here is that there would be no attempt of |
97 |
> > > mediation with said person. As my proposal states this is an |
98 |
> > > *extreme* decision meant only for *long-time* and *repeated* |
99 |
> > > offenders. When we get there, there's no possibility for mediation - |
100 |
> > > that's something that would have been tried a long time before we get |
101 |
> there. |
102 |
> > |
103 |
> > See above. And as i said, I've never seen anyone who fits such a |
104 |
> > profile, so perhaps we're spending a lot of time here defining how we |
105 |
> > treat the empty set. |
106 |
> |
107 |
> I think it's clear that your opinion does not necessarily represent the |
108 |
> opinions of everyone else in Gentoo, so arguing that your empty set is |
109 |
> Gentoo's empty set is not valid. |
110 |
> |
111 |
> > > | 8. [Argument] I note that we are likely to institute some form |
112 |
> > > | of possible moderation for the gentoo-dev mailing list (presumably |
113 |
> > > | based on Code of Conduct violations), and if we do that, it |
114 |
> > > | effectively satisfies the intent of any absolute ban, but is not |
115 |
> > > | nearly so traumatic to the system. I note that this is a minority |
116 |
> > > | view among those who have discussed this. |
117 |
> > > |
118 |
> > > Ferris, I do hope the moderation will prevent so many abuses on the |
119 |
> > > mls, but it alone won't change people's mindsets and actions. |
120 |
> > > Although posts can be moderated, it doesn't mean that people will |
121 |
> > > stop trying to send abusive mails and that a few might even get to |
122 |
> > > the lists. Also, it doesn't address irc, bugzilla and other mediums |
123 |
> abuse. |
124 |
> > |
125 |
> > If we have your hypothetical poisonous person running around loose |
126 |
> > somewhere and put him (or her) into a must-be-moderated list for |
127 |
> > gentoo-dev, the problem there should disappear because posts will be |
128 |
> > shunted to the moderators. #gentoo-dev is a more general concern than |
129 |
> > just a few specific people and falls generally under Code of Conduct |
130 |
> > for immediate correction. Bugzilla looks like a bigger problem than |
131 |
> > it is, because when it explodes it can be spectacular. But it is not |
132 |
> > limited to one or two people, either (even I have lost control on |
133 |
> > bugzilla, and I generally appear pretty calm and rational, I think). |
134 |
> |
135 |
> I don't think moderation is the answer, because it's a very small group of |
136 |
> people who become regular, recurring problems. |
137 |
> |
138 |
> > Jorge, you know, if you and I were both forced to come up with a list |
139 |
> > of five poisonous people to consider for application of such a ban, I |
140 |
> > suspect their intersection might be empty. What then? |
141 |
> > |
142 |
> > It is my view that both userrel and devrel may enforce the Code of |
143 |
> > Conduct, |
144 |
> |
145 |
> I agree. |
146 |
> |
147 |
> > but also Code of Conduct should be limited to quick response to |
148 |
> > immediate situations. |
149 |
> |
150 |
> I do not agree. Just because something happened in the past does not mean |
151 |
> it never happened and should not be considered. |
152 |
> |
153 |
> > I think devrel and userrel are the wrong bodies to be rooting around |
154 |
> > in the past if that's what you are proposing. Neither of us is set up |
155 |
> > to do that. We act on current behavior, and if discipline is |
156 |
> > warranted, then we can take to past behavior for guidance if we wish. |
157 |
> > I don't think anyone in Gentoo currently has the charter to look at |
158 |
> > the community and say "X has been causing trouble long enough --- |
159 |
> > let's just boot X." Nor do I think we want anyone to have such |
160 |
> > authority --- surely we're more tolerant and flexible than that. |
161 |
> |
162 |
> Again I dislike your implications that anyone who would act on past |
163 |
> behavior is intolerant and inflexible. Please stop using implications like |
164 |
> this. |
165 |
> |
166 |
> -- |
167 |
> Thanks, |
168 |
> Donnie |
169 |
> |
170 |
> Donnie Berkholz |
171 |
> Developer, Gentoo Linux |
172 |
> Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
173 |
|
174 |
-- |
175 |
gentoo-council@l.g.o mailing list |