On Saturday 23 June 2007 14:29, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> "E. [Proctors/Devrel] determine recruiting needs and recruit to achieve
> Members of an institution that is supposed to impose disciplinary action
> on Gentoo devs and others should not be recruited but elected.
> Otherwise their authority will be challenged all the time. Elected members
> will have at least a *bit* more autority.
Agreed; the term mandate is often used to denote elected authority, and the
fact that one is elected implies that one is there to represent the interests
of the electors, not one own's personal agenda.
> "There is no option to think about it --- either make a stop or let it
> That's a rather bad idea - no option to think about how to handle a
> situation? If I were cynical, I'd say that's what got you into the
> current situation. ;)
> "They [Proctors] work "real time""
> That'll lead to rushed (and therefore potentially wrong) decisions.
Well, I read this more to mean that proctors are there in the same way as
forum or irc moderators, to keep the discussion civil and on-topic. As such,
they have to react fairly quickly, and it has to be clear that they have the
authority to do so.
This is not the same as not thinking about how to handle a situation. Firstly,
experience helps one to know what the right thing to do is. Secondly, teams
of moderators tend to discuss ongoing situations as and when they happen. New
moderators learn from the experienced ones in action and discussion. And
policy-making has been transparent and inclusive, since comments were invited
on the Code of Conduct, which was taken from the existing Social Contract
iirc, right from the start.
> IMO, we don't need proctors but if the proctors are kept, they should work
> on a comlaint basis, too. Suppose both parties come from "Czamistan" -
> they both know "big-balled goat lover" is not an insult but a
> compliment - why should proctors react?
Well if the audience were all from country X it wouldn't matter. Expecting
people to conform to acceptable language in an international forum seems
reasonable, even desirable. As noted before, the proctor would simply get in
touch to explain that the language could be mis-construed. If the person
didn't like that, they'd probably need to adjust for interaction with the
community. And better to help them to do that early on imo.
> Suppose I come from Germany (which I do :-) ) and am being called
> a "big-balled goat lover" - if you could see me, you'd witness me roaring
> with laughter. Even though I don't know what "Czamistan" is and that this
> is meant to be a compliment. Many people can, btw, read between the lines
> and understand what is actually meant. :-)
Yes, but you'd have been wrong in this hypothetical situation. You'd have
taken it as a joke, when it was a sincerely-meant compliment. Another might
take it as an insult, with worse consequences for harmonious interaction. And
believe me, someone laughing in your face when you are being serious is not
> We don't a big brother watching us - we can decide for ourselves if we're
> offended or not. If we are, we can either complain to DevRel (if the
> other party is a dev) or, if the proctors are kept, to proctors.
Hmm. Thing is, by that stage people have normally got their heckles up. There
is an audience, so tension is heightened. Putting out brush-fires is easier
than dealing with a forest-fire.
> Without proctors, we can simply ignore non-dev offenders. We may have to
> deal with other devs but there's no obligation to interact with certain
None at all. It's a shame more of you don't just ignore certain non-devs,
instead of appearing so stringent with their humour, yet so callous with your
own. (By your, I do not mean you specifically, of course.) Other non-devs
seem to pursue political agendas and are never even questioned. The thing is,
these aren't what people signed up for. Proctors did, albeit reluctantly (one
IMO they haven't even been allowed to start; the first time they intervened,
only asking for a 24 hour mute on ONE thread, a Council member denigrated the
entire project. How this is supposed to facilitate their work is quite beyond
me, as is why the Council member never discussed his concerns with the team
established by the Council to sort out long-standing issues. The Council's
silence on this (unless I have missed something, of course) does not reflect
well on them, to this external observer.
> "and after some conditioning", "re-orientation" and some other terms used
> in either or both documents.
> I'm sorry and maybe it comes from the cultural differences but, honestly,
> to me this sounds like we're going to have "re-education camps" for
> the "misguided".
It does sound unfortunate I agree. I think the author is not an
English-speaker, and is trying to discuss cultural change. And from your
email, and prior discussion, there appears to be a consensus that there is a
need for cultural change.
I hope things get better, and thanks for a great distro; it makes my life a
lot easier! :-)
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list