1 |
On 06/19/2010 03:10 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
2 |
> I can assure you that if someone goes to #gentoo-forums and tries to |
3 |
> tell the forums team what tone should be used in that channel, we'll |
4 |
> kindly ask the person to stop or to leave. This is one of the "public" |
5 |
> and exposed channels and thus we have a tone with that in mind, but |
6 |
> we're not going to set our tone according to the demands of a developer |
7 |
> that is not even part of the team. |
8 |
|
9 |
I was not suggesting that tone in Gentoo was up to the discretion of any |
10 |
individual developer - neither myself, nor you, nor the head of |
11 |
infra/forums/etc. The tone in Gentoo is up to Gentoo. Fortunately we |
12 |
have a forum for deciding what Gentoo wants - we elect them annually. |
13 |
|
14 |
> What would grant |
15 |
> any non-member of a team the right to demand how the members of the team |
16 |
> should act amongst themselves in their private room? |
17 |
|
18 |
Simple - the room belongs to Gentoo as a whole. You're certainly free |
19 |
not to listen to me, but I and others are free to point out that this |
20 |
isn't good for Gentoo. I certainly wouldn't take it upon myself to |
21 |
enforce the CofC, but I certainly would urge those responsible for |
22 |
governing the distro to do so. |
23 |
|
24 |
> About the "legal right", that isn't true. There are a few misconceptions |
25 |
> in your statement. Even though the Foundation is the body which holds |
26 |
> the Gentoo brand, trademarks and logo, it's not the Foundation that sets |
27 |
> the rules for joining and be part of the Gentoo Developers Community. |
28 |
> Furthermore, being a Gentoo developer doesn't mean you can join any team |
29 |
> you want or that you have a "right" to go to any #gentoo-* channel. In |
30 |
> case you have any doubt, I can give you a list of quite a few channels |
31 |
> most developers don't have access to. |
32 |
|
33 |
Your statement is partially correct - obviously if I am a stockholder in |
34 |
Google I can't choose to just waltz onto the corporate campus and go |
35 |
around as I please, merely by virtue of being a shareholder. |
36 |
|
37 |
However, a shareholder of Google certainly is able to speak out about |
38 |
actions within the company that they feel damage it, and their elected |
39 |
representatives (the board) can give power to anybody (including |
40 |
themselves) to waltz around and put things in order. This starts with |
41 |
their authority to hire and fire the CEO at whim. |
42 |
|
43 |
Ultimately, if anything contains the name "Gentoo" and represents itself |
44 |
as being associated with a linux distribution, then it is using a |
45 |
trademark owned by the Gentoo Foundation. In the end, any use of Gentoo |
46 |
trademarks is completely at the discretion of the Foundation. |
47 |
|
48 |
> If you insist, to address the question that access lists for #gentoo-* |
49 |
> channels can be set by Freenode (our main IRC network), you should know |
50 |
> that the only people Freenode will listen to regarding that are the |
51 |
> members of the Freenode Gentoo Group Contacts. The people in that group |
52 |
> were not chosen by the Foundation nor do they respond to it. |
53 |
|
54 |
Well, this is getting a bit silly, but they'd certainly answer to a |
55 |
cease and desist, or those hosting their servers certainly would. It |
56 |
would obviously never come to that. Go ahead and try to register |
57 |
#microsoft-press-releases and see if being named the official contact |
58 |
gets you anywhere. |
59 |
|
60 |
> Also, please never forget that being part of Gentoo is a "privilege" and |
61 |
> not a "right". |
62 |
|
63 |
On that we certainly agree. It really wasn't my intention to suggest |
64 |
that somehow anybody was personally beholden to me. I really am just |
65 |
stating my opinion, as are you. |
66 |
|
67 |
> As an example, even though I use my gentoo cloak online, you don't have |
68 |
> any right to impose a behaviour into me in my private channel. |
69 |
|
70 |
Sure, I cannot, personally. However, Gentoo certainly can. At the very |
71 |
least I'd expect devs to generally conduct themselves in a manner where |
72 |
such things aren't necessary to even bring up. |
73 |
|
74 |
> We have a loosely-knit community that is able to provide a reasonable |
75 |
> product "Gentoo Linux". Let's try to avoid killing it by wanting to |
76 |
> impose a certain "mentality" or "behaviour" into others and let's try to |
77 |
> respect each other and learn to live in a community. |
78 |
|
79 |
Well, the whole principle of the CofC is that it imposes behaviors on |
80 |
those who wish to use Gentoo media, or be Gentoo staff. |
81 |
|
82 |
That said, I really don't suggest that anybody need be heavy-handed. |
83 |
Nor do I suggest that my personal opinion should be the one that rules |
84 |
Gentoo (I would say the same regarding your opinion as well). In the |
85 |
end that's all we're doing - you say that infra decides what happens on |
86 |
#gentoo-infra, and I say that they don't (well, not ultimately - |
87 |
certainly I'd suggest that the trustees/council should of course |
88 |
delegate channel moderation to the team that uses the channel, and only |
89 |
intervene if necessary). |
90 |
|
91 |
What I would say is that I encourage those who are in the trustees and |
92 |
council to recognize the importance of this issue, and I ask that they |
93 |
consider that tone really does matter. We elect these bodies to speak |
94 |
for Gentoo, and I think that this is an issue where Gentoo could stand |
95 |
to be heard. Gentoo has spoken before in issuing the Code of Conduct - |
96 |
perhaps now we just need to actually enforce it. |
97 |
|
98 |
Rich |