Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Chrissy Fullam <cfullam@×××××××.net>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Cc: 'Ferris McCormick' <fmccor@g.o>, 'Roy Bamford' <neddyseagoon@g.o>
Subject: RE: [gentoo-project] CoC round 2 (or is it 10? ;)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:41:05
Message-Id: 604A3C2EA5624F8B8CE36F2DCC5B827B@draco2
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] CoC round 2 (or is it 10? ;) by Ferris McCormick
I hate long emails so I apologize in advance. Most of this is just showing
what I base my own comments on in the hope that it makes more sense that
way. :)


> > How are passive and active defined in this context then? > > Passive would have to be the controllers wait for a complaint > > active would be the controllers work in as close to real time. > > It was my understanding that this was one of the > distinguishing points between the Code of Conduct/Proctors > and the existing Devrel structure.
Perhaps we shouldn't lump the CoC and Proctors together during this discussion as those are two separate issues. I interpret the real issue to be what is the policy and how would we like it enforced. That issue could later lead into a discussion of forming a new team if that is ultimately what we decide we simply must do.
> It seems rather clear to me, at any rate, that the Code of Conduct is > normative: It lays out in general terms boundaries for acceptable > *real time* behavior in the various Gentoo communications media. > I would consider this to be "active" control. > Contrast this with ... "Developer relations should only be > involved in a conflict when other attempts to > solve the issue have failed." > I would consider this to be "passive" control. > > Now, Council might not like it that way, but in my opinion (I > speak for myself here), we must live with the policy as it > reads, not as how we might like it to read.
I have a slightly different view. We are not 'stuck' with policy as it is. We have every opportunity to change policy as we grow and our needs change. So, existing policy need not hold us back from updating policy and implementing new ones.
> I have always been involved with Conflicts > Resolution and prefer to work as a mediator; I have little > interest in "policing" mailing lists or IRC.
I'd consider this to be an internal Dev Rel/Conf Res discussion. If someone doesn't want to pursue all angles that a team operates in, then they should have that discussion with the appropriate lead, though I doubt it would be viewed as a problem in this case.
> > We don't need a new project to continue this sort of > > activity, nor do we need to add to the scope of any existing project. > > Anyone can do it anytime. Curbing the worst excesses of friends is one > > of the things we can all do for one another. Continued poor behavior > > should be referred to the appropriate body in the normal way. > > > I think it's [ML] calmed down, too. I'll note that at the moment, > from what I've seen, Devrel (Conflicts) is getting very > little "action" as well.
I think the mailing list has calmed down in part due to the additional mailing lists created and the purposes behind them. We have given appropriate channels for most conversations. I also agree with Neddy when he mentioned that each of us can help 'curb the worse excesses' of each other and doing so in a civil manner. It seems to me that we have been doing that well as of late.
> I'll use this as a vehicle to throw some oil onto the fire. > There seems to be a consensus for folding the old Proctor > function into Devrel/Userrel. Of course, this has some > implications: Devrel, for example, is structured to support > it's policy as it is now. We can fold the Proctor function > into Devrel/Userrel, of course, but this has both staffing > implications and inter-group interaction implications.
These are points to note for sure, however I don't feel that they are severe issues that should restrict us from doing so. Staffing needs: well those are on going and in many teams, the additional work load as been nominal as fmccor mentioned above. "(Conflicts) is getting very little "action" as well." Inter-group interaction implications: I presume this is referring to Dev Rel and User Rel working together. I don't see this as being a problem in any way as we already work with those same people, in some cases they hold roles on both teams.
> Personally, I think we'd end up establishing the Proctors by > another name. What is the argument against just > reestablishing the Proctors and be done with it?
I do not think we have indicated the *need* for Proctors specifically, or to form any team by an name for the purpose of enforcing the CoC. So there is no need to argue against something that has no argument to exist... if that makes sense. ;-) So to bring this back around to its originating points:
> - how to enforce it > - whether it's active or passive enforcement > - which actions are appropriate
Anyone care to comment on what is appropriate? I think slong is the only one who has touched on this portion:
> IMO muting a thread/locking a forum post/setting irc +m for 24 > hours/forever/however long the ops think it needs, with > email/privmsg/pm discussion with whichever people are most > vociferously flaming each other (as decided by the mods.)
> - who enforces it > - musikc said devrel could > - tsunam said userrel could
This is biased, obviously, but I agree with myself: Dev Rel and User Rel could continue to handle this and update our documents/policies/etc to indicate such.
> - If the -project list does not come up with a draft, dberkholz will
I suspect dberkholz may end up writing the draft since he pre-volunteered, but we should give him our opinions to be weighed into the matter so speak up folks. Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations -- gentoo-project@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-project] RE: CoC round 2 (or is it 10? ;) Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>