Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
To: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
Cc: Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>, gentoo-council <gentoo-council@l.g.o>, gentoo-project <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-council] User Relations authority
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:22:09
Message-Id: 1215786125.2915.1@spike
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-council] User Relations authority by Ferris McCormick
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

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-council] User Relations authority Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>