1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
> This is a bit later than I intended because of real life interference, |
3 |
> but here's some ideas for how to enforce the CoC. It's a little long, |
4 |
> sorry about that; we can push off the vote again if we don't have a |
5 |
> majority of people prepared for it by the meeting. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I separated it into problem, conceptual solution, and implementation so |
8 |
> you can decide which levels you like and which could use tweaking. |
9 |
> |
10 |
Firstly, thanks (from a user) for your hard work on this. Personally I like |
11 |
the mechanisms discussed for implementation, both the time periods |
12 |
envisaged and the move to behind-the-scenes. |
13 |
|
14 |
I feel less comfortable with the following: |
15 |
1) "a strong lead to ensure the team's actions fit the council's CoC |
16 |
interpretation." |
17 |
|
18 |
While I agree the team needs to act consistently, and in a united manner (ie |
19 |
speak with one voice, as it were) I do not think placing emphasis on one |
20 |
individual is a wise move. It places greater onus on that person, and often |
21 |
leads to more stress followed by burnout, with all the attendant problems |
22 |
which are much more difficult precisely because the individual has greater |
23 |
authority. A strong team, made of strong personalities who are mature |
24 |
enough to reach collective decisions, is better both for the appearance of |
25 |
impartiality and longer-term consistency. |
26 |
|
27 |
2) "It is expected that membership on this team will be highly selective and |
28 |
not all who wish to join will make the cut. The team will be limited to |
29 |
3 people for a probationary period so we don't get dumped in the deep |
30 |
end right away, and it will never have more than 5 people." |
31 |
|
32 |
I don't think it should really be a job given to people who want to do it |
33 |
for the sake of it. The last team appeared to be the right set, based on |
34 |
their experience, and seemed to take the job because it needed to be done, |
35 |
not because it was seen as some sort of elite team. Maybe I'm being a bit |
36 |
sensitive to the nuance of the language, but I think the tone matters. |
37 |
|
38 |
The numbers others have commented on; I concur that it seems a bit limited |
39 |
(in the longer-term) to cover the timezones and ensure timely coverage. |
40 |
Expanding on that a bit, I think it would be good to stipulate some sort of |
41 |
cross-cultural mix: a team made up of purely North Americans or Anglophones |
42 |
is not going to be as attuned to the sensitivities of the diverse user base |
43 |
as is needed, imo. |
44 |
|
45 |
Wernfried Haas wrote: |
46 |
> This is quite similar to how warnings andbans are done on the forums, |
47 |
> we always document who warned/banned whom and for what reason and it |
48 |
> has worked quite well so far there. |
49 |
|
50 |
++ to documentation, and the points others raised about an appeals |
51 |
mechanism. Amne also mentioned discussion with the "offender" before |
52 |
sanctions are imposed. While I agree that you don't want to get into an |
53 |
argument with people, I think you're going to have to accept that people |
54 |
*will* argue about it (even more so given that it's techies) and your team |
55 |
needs to be ready to justify their decisions. I have no issue with a mute |
56 |
being imposed first (for a few hours) and the discussion taking place at |
57 |
that point. But there does need to be that discussion, and the earlier the |
58 |
better, so that people are brought into line with community expectations at |
59 |
an early stage, when the conflict is less. |
60 |
|
61 |
The proposal to review monthly for the first 3 months seems sound too. |
62 |
|
63 |
Thanks for the proposal so far; the actual details of the day-to-day |
64 |
implementation are just right imo. |
65 |
|
66 |
|
67 |
-- |
68 |
gentoo-project@g.o mailing list |