1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
> On 08:38 Mon 12 Nov , Steve Long wrote: |
3 |
>> I feel less comfortable with the following: |
4 |
>> 1) "a strong lead to ensure the team's actions fit the council's CoC |
5 |
>> interpretation." |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> While I agree the team needs to act consistently, and in a united manner |
8 |
>> (ie speak with one voice, as it were) I do not think placing emphasis on |
9 |
>> one individual is a wise move. It places greater onus on that person, and |
10 |
>> often leads to more stress followed by burnout, with all the attendant |
11 |
>> problems which are much more difficult precisely because the individual |
12 |
>> has greater authority. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> What I'm reading here is that a leader needs to lead, with its attendant |
15 |
> responsibilities. Having a leader creates a single source of |
16 |
> responsibility and accountability. |
17 |
Understood, but that single point of failure is exactly that imo: a weak |
18 |
point, since more pressure is placed on an individual. Given the voluntary |
19 |
nature of it, the likelihood of burnout in Free software is even greater |
20 |
than in commercial development, where it's an acknowledged problem. Since |
21 |
so many of us work in IT, we really don't need the stress in our time out. |
22 |
|
23 |
> That way, you don't have to disband the whole team if you decide to take |
24 |
> action against it (sound familiar?). |
25 |
Hmm it does, but I don't think that was a considered, collective decision by |
26 |
the Council. There are already procedures in place for the Council to take |
27 |
action when they feel a team is losing direction, are there not? Plus I |
28 |
think the review process is seen as something important, so I feel the team |
29 |
would both be properly supervised and focussed on the task. |
30 |
|
31 |
> A single person is putting his or her reputation on the line |
32 |
> instead of getting caught up in groupthink and avoiding accountability. |
33 |
> Committees are a fantastic way to avoid blaming anyone for anything. |
34 |
> |
35 |
Yeah, totally :-) I don't see this as a Committee in the sense that they're |
36 |
not deciding future direction, like the Council, but much more akin to the |
37 |
forum moderators or irc ops, who discuss actions. Each member is free to |
38 |
mute a thread, or kick an individual, but they expect to justify that |
39 |
action if called upon. |
40 |
|
41 |
> Being impartial, in my opinion, is a pipe dream. |
42 |
Ideals always are: you still have to have the goal in mind though, and be |
43 |
ready to admit mistakes, since we all make them. That's the only effective |
44 |
way to improve processes, that I know. |
45 |
|
46 |
> Gentoo isn't a large enough community for people to not know each other. |
47 |
Yeah I think that's the issue though: 2 or 3 years ago it was a very small |
48 |
knit group. Now there are herds and projects all over, with several |
49 |
overlays feeding excellent work into the tree after it's been refined in |
50 |
consultation with interested users. While the sense of community is still |
51 |
quite strong, especially amongst users, it is qualitatively different. |
52 |
Isn't this whole process about how you grow from a small group to a larger |
53 |
one, while not losing the ethos? |
54 |
|
55 |
> The only way I can |
56 |
> think of to deal with that is to admit your previous experiences and |
57 |
> thoughts so others can take them into consideration. |
58 |
> |
59 |
Agreed. |
60 |
|
61 |
>> I don't think it should really be a job given to people who want to do it |
62 |
>> for the sake of it. The last team appeared to be the right set, based on |
63 |
>> their experience, and seemed to take the job because it needed to be |
64 |
>> done, not because it was seen as some sort of elite team. Maybe I'm being |
65 |
>> a bit sensitive to the nuance of the language, but I think the tone |
66 |
>> matters. |
67 |
> |
68 |
> In a volunteer community, people only get really committed to things |
69 |
> they want to do. How do you propose to change that? |
70 |
> |
71 |
Heh, not at all. The question is whether someone is interested in helping |
72 |
their community, or in a "highly selective position" they had to compete |
73 |
for. Forum moderators and irc ops don't get a lot of thanks most of the |
74 |
time, afaict, but without them the experience would be a lot worse for |
75 |
everyone. I'm curious now, as to how they recruit people. |
76 |
|
77 |
Certainly I've never given ops on the basis of desire for the position. Yes, |
78 |
there's kudos involved, but thinking back the people I've asked have all |
79 |
been reluctant or perhaps wary, and are people who don't like using the |
80 |
authority; they discuss first, and give clear warning. The fact that that |
81 |
is done openly, reassures some who might have found the behaviour |
82 |
intimidating, and reminds others that there are boundaries. Of course, this |
83 |
isn't IRC. |
84 |
|
85 |
Of course, many people do similar work with no position and in private. I |
86 |
guess it's a bit like politicians: you really don't want the people who are |
87 |
after the job. |
88 |
|
89 |
> I agree that the time zone coverage could be a bit limited with this |
90 |
> number of people. One reason for this is that we don't need to catch |
91 |
> 100% of the possible things that could happen, and we don't need to |
92 |
> stare at IRC windows or mailing lists all day lonng. |
93 |
> |
94 |
Sure. Life's for living, after all :) |
95 |
|
96 |
> You're right, Gentoo's members come from all over the world. That |
97 |
> doesn't mean that Gentoo itself cannot have a single culture, though, |
98 |
> wherever we came from originally. |
99 |
> |
100 |
No indeed; I just think that people who only speak English tend to miss that |
101 |
things can be misinterpreted. Having a team with nobody who speaks other |
102 |
languages (preferably as a mother tongue imo) would be disastrous afaic. |
103 |
Much of this is really about how you get people into that culture, so they |
104 |
understand the humour and the norms. |
105 |
|
106 |
>> Wernfried Haas wrote: |
107 |
>> > This is quite similar to how warnings andbans are done on the forums, |
108 |
>> > we always document who warned/banned whom and for what reason and it |
109 |
>> > has worked quite well so far there. |
110 |
>> |
111 |
>> ++ to documentation, and the points others raised about an appeals |
112 |
>> mechanism. Amne also mentioned discussion with the "offender" before |
113 |
>> sanctions are imposed. While I agree that you don't want to get into an |
114 |
>> argument with people, I think you're going to have to accept that people |
115 |
>> *will* argue about it (even more so given that it's techies) and your |
116 |
>> team needs to be ready to justify their decisions. I have no issue with a |
117 |
>> mute being imposed first (for a few hours) and the discussion taking |
118 |
>> place at that point. But there does need to be that discussion, and the |
119 |
>> earlier the better, so that people are brought into line with community |
120 |
>> expectations at an early stage, when the conflict is less. |
121 |
> |
122 |
> I agree that the team could certainly make its rationale available |
123 |
> (logs, interpretations of the CoC) upon request by someone it took |
124 |
> action against. |
125 |
Yeah, that would be good. I think the action email should make it clear that |
126 |
the person has that right, and who to write to to request the |
127 |
logs/deliberations. |
128 |
|
129 |
> I don't agree with discussions or arguments with that |
130 |
> person, because they will drag the team down. |
131 |
> |
132 |
Yeah, I mean more for people who are new. Having a quiet, friendly, word in |
133 |
private the first time someone appears to be having difficulty |
134 |
communicating with the herd seems like a good idea to me. If the situation |
135 |
escalates and it leads to a mute for a few hours, at least that person |
136 |
would have had an avenue to express their side of the conflict to someone |
137 |
who is trained to consider the CoC and what it means for all parties, and |
138 |
has some experience of conflict resolution. |
139 |
|
140 |
Thanks for your time and hard work. (The commit reviews are great! :-) |
141 |
|
142 |
|
143 |
-- |
144 |
gentoo-project@g.o mailing list |