1 |
On 2007.10.14 13:39, Steve Long wrote: |
2 |
> Chrissy Fullam wrote: |
3 |
> >> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
4 |
> >> Here is the summary from today's council meeting. The |
5 |
> >> complete log will show up at |
6 |
> > <snip> |
7 |
> > - The CoC is in effect, but it needs a new enforcement section |
8 |
> since |
9 |
> the |
10 |
> > proctors were disbanded. The council is sending discussion of this |
11 |
> to |
12 |
> > the gentoo-project list, to come up with proposals for three |
13 |
> points: |
14 |
> > - who enforces it |
15 |
> > - musikc said devrel could |
16 |
> > - tsunam said userrel could |
17 |
> > <snip> |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > I wanted to clarify, please understand the intent behind my part of |
20 |
> the |
21 |
> > conversation was that devrel and userrel should continue to share |
22 |
> the |
23 |
> > responsibility as appropriate, and continue to work together, |
24 |
> including |
25 |
> > the questionable/overlapping areas. The above may have been |
26 |
> misinterpreted |
27 |
> > by some to indicate 'pick which one', when my intent was a joined |
28 |
> front on |
29 |
> > enforcing the CoC. |
30 |
> > |
31 |
> That seems reasonable, since the two groups who need equal treatment |
32 |
> in an |
33 |
> even-handed, impartial manner, are the users and the devs. I'd be |
34 |
> happier |
35 |
> if user-reps were considered for the pool as well, since devs all |
36 |
> seem |
37 |
> to |
38 |
> know each other fairly well and are quite a close-knit virtual |
39 |
> community. |
40 |
> Closing ranks happens: deal with it or not. *shrug* YMMV. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> >> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
43 |
> > > - how to enforce it |
44 |
> > > - whether it's active or passive enforcement |
45 |
> Er well I'd say passive enforcements what you've had so far (at least |
46 |
> as far |
47 |
> as the dev m-l, which is where many issues seem to surface, goes) and |
48 |
> it |
49 |
> hasn't worked out very well, which was why there was the long |
50 |
> "discussion" |
51 |
> on dev[1] followed by the decision to establish the proctors[2]. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> > > - which actions are appropriate |
54 |
> > > |
55 |
> IMO muting a thread/locking a forum post/setting irc +m for 24 |
56 |
> hours/forever/however long the ops think it needs, with |
57 |
> email/privmsg/pm |
58 |
> discussion with whichever people are most vociferously flaming each |
59 |
> other |
60 |
> (as decided by the mods.) |
61 |
> |
62 |
> > > - If the -project list does not come up with a draft, dberkholz |
63 |
> will |
64 |
> > > write one based on -project discussion to vote upon at the |
65 |
> November |
66 |
> > > council meeting. |
67 |
> |
68 |
> Of course, you're going to need people who have experience of forum |
69 |
> moderation, since that's the closest to email. IRC ops can overreact |
70 |
> in |
71 |
> this context, since they have to close a |
72 |
> flamewar/cursing-match/abusive |
73 |
> situation down in real-time, so their instinct is naturally to set +b |
74 |
> for |
75 |
> the medium. |
76 |
> |
77 |
> [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/46339/ |
78 |
> focus=46611 |
79 |
> [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/46780 |
80 |
> |
81 |
> |
82 |
> -- |
83 |
> gentoo-project@g.o mailing list |
84 |
> |
85 |
|
86 |
Steve, |
87 |
|
88 |
Some interesting points ... control of any written channel can only be |
89 |
passive, in the sense that controllers are always responding after the |
90 |
event. The possible exception is a moderated mailing list. |
91 |
|
92 |
How are passive and active defined in this context then? |
93 |
Passive would have to be the controllers wait for a complaint before |
94 |
acting and active would be the controllers work in as close to real |
95 |
time as the medium allows, on things they notice for themselves as |
96 |
happens in IRC and forums. They are always reactive regardless. |
97 |
|
98 |
Most of the proctors actions were carried out in private, this seemed |
99 |
to work best since most people hate to be publicly asked to exercise |
100 |
restraint. We don't need a new project to continue this sort of |
101 |
activity, nor do we need to add to the scope of any existing project. |
102 |
Anyone can do it anytime. Curbing the worst excesses of friends is one |
103 |
of the things we can all do for one another. Continued poor behavior |
104 |
should be referred to the appropriate body in the normal way. |
105 |
|
106 |
The -dev mailing list seems to have calmed down since the proctors most |
107 |
public action, when a number of users had their posting rights |
108 |
suspended briefly. I'm unsure if the creation of -project played a big |
109 |
part in this or not. Judging by the number of posts to -project, I |
110 |
think its unlikely. I'm more inclined to believe that the bloodletting |
111 |
on that particular thread was something that everyone was aware of |
112 |
and nobody wanted to risk repeating. Thus the proctors served their |
113 |
purpose. |
114 |
|
115 |
Regards, |
116 |
|
117 |
Roy Bamford |
118 |
(NeddySeagoon) |
119 |
Is/was a member of |
120 |
gentoo-forums |
121 |
gentoo-ops |
122 |
gentoo-treecleaners |
123 |
gentoo-proctors |
124 |
|
125 |
|
126 |
-- |
127 |
gentoo-project@g.o mailing list |