1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 2008.07.11 13:47, Ferris McCormick wrote: |
5 |
[snip] |
6 |
> ==================================================================== |
7 |
> Now, I'm going to change the topic slightly and explain what I think |
8 |
> the |
9 |
> context of Jorge's proposals is. I ask him to set me straight if I'm |
10 |
> getting it wrong. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> As I understand it, these proposals fit into the context of the Code |
13 |
> of |
14 |
> Conduct, and no matter what you say, I am certain that the Code of |
15 |
> Conduct was put in place to address problems as they occur in order |
16 |
> cut |
17 |
> off and prevent brush fires. In this context, his permanent ban |
18 |
> proposals would be the final sanction after quite a long run of |
19 |
> working |
20 |
> with someone through the Code of Conduct itself. And I have never |
21 |
> seen |
22 |
> anything suggesting nor anyone proposing that the Code of Conduct has |
23 |
> a |
24 |
> long reach into the past to apply to someone now. Code of Conduct |
25 |
> addresses current conduct; it does not address past conduct except in |
26 |
> the context of what is going on now. I ask Roy or Jorge please to |
27 |
> correct me on this. |
28 |
[snip] |
29 |
|
30 |
All, |
31 |
|
32 |
- From memory, the CoC was not intended to change *rels authority or |
33 |
scope of action in any way at all. It was intended to document some |
34 |
behaviours that anyone at all could use as a reference to remind other |
35 |
participants in a medium that they we not behaving as other users had a |
36 |
|
37 |
right to expect. I recall it was based on some of the concepts behind |
38 |
freenodes catalyst idea. |
39 |
|
40 |
See dberkholzs' earlier ideas on CoC enforcement - anyone can do it. |
41 |
|
42 |
There was no statute of limitations implied with the creation of the |
43 |
CoC. While the CoC was being drafted, it was recognised that many CoC |
44 |
breaches come from anger/emotion/misunderstandings and their writers |
45 |
not sleeping on a post before they make it. |
46 |
It was also recognised that *rel take in comparison to these |
47 |
outbursts, a long time to act. The Proctors was created at the same |
48 |
time as the CoC as a rapid reaction group to deal with rapidly |
49 |
developing situations and calm things down, leaving *rel to deal with |
50 |
the persistent offenders in slower time as they always had done. |
51 |
|
52 |
In short, the publishing of the CoC changed nothing, it only documented |
53 |
something that had always been implied previously. |
54 |
|
55 |
Note that the Forums mods and #gentoo channel ops had been enforcing |
56 |
the standards in the CoC long before it was written. It follows that |
57 |
the CoC is just documenting a part of what had been Gentoos' common |
58 |
law. |
59 |
|
60 |
- -- |
61 |
Regards, |
62 |
|
63 |
Roy Bamford |
64 |
(NeddySeagoon) a member of |
65 |
gentoo-ops |
66 |
forum-mods |
67 |
treecleaners |
68 |
trustees |
69 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
70 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
71 |
|
72 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkh3bI0ACgkQTE4/y7nJvatqlwCdF2Revmxj0s9PYyBqu5MIVpX7 |
73 |
fKYAoP1zykLd9CI71nKINs9QJlmzyoU8 |
74 |
=0Fg9 |
75 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
76 |
|
77 |
-- |
78 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |