1 |
Roy Bamford wrote: |
2 |
> Some interesting points ... control of any written channel can only be |
3 |
> passive, in the sense that controllers are always responding after the |
4 |
> event. The possible exception is a moderated mailing list. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> How are passive and active defined in this context then? |
7 |
> Passive would have to be the controllers wait for a complaint before |
8 |
> acting and active would be the controllers work in as close to real |
9 |
> time as the medium allows, on things they notice for themselves as |
10 |
> happens in IRC and forums. They are always reactive regardless. |
11 |
> |
12 |
I concur that it is only ever reactive. I take active v passive, in the |
13 |
context of the mailing list, to mean the use of public mutes, similar to a |
14 |
forum thread being locked because it has descended into flames vs allowing |
15 |
the flames to continue and taking action via devrel, which rightly takes a |
16 |
long time, since it is about a dev's conduct over a period of time, not |
17 |
about one heated discussion. |
18 |
|
19 |
(If you cover how devs will be moderated, the same can apply to users with |
20 |
no issue. The inverse does not apply, unfortunately, due to the culture of |
21 |
the group under discussion.) |
22 |
|
23 |
> Most of the proctors actions were carried out in private, this seemed |
24 |
> to work best since most people hate to be publicly asked to exercise |
25 |
> restraint. We don't need a new project to continue this sort of |
26 |
> activity, nor do we need to add to the scope of any existing project. |
27 |
> Anyone can do it anytime. Curbing the worst excesses of friends is one |
28 |
> of the things we can all do for one another. |
29 |
Agreed, wholeheartedly. |
30 |
|
31 |
> Continued poor behavior should be referred to the appropriate body in the |
32 |
> normal way. |
33 |
> |
34 |
Yes that's the situation at present, and was the situation before the whole |
35 |
CoC discussion. It didn't work before, and with respect, I don't think |
36 |
it'll work in future, should the need arise. |
37 |
|
38 |
> The -dev mailing list seems to have calmed down since the proctors most |
39 |
> public action, when a number of users had their posting rights |
40 |
> suspended briefly. I'm unsure if the creation of -project played a big |
41 |
> part in this or not. Judging by the number of posts to -project, I |
42 |
> think its unlikely. I'm more inclined to believe that the bloodletting |
43 |
> on that particular thread was something that everyone was aware of |
44 |
> and nobody wanted to risk repeating. Thus the proctors served their |
45 |
> purpose. |
46 |
> |
47 |
By falling on their swords? I think that was unfortunate, to use a |
48 |
euphemism. The problem is, there's nothing to stop the situation recurring |
49 |
in the future, at a point where the people involved have no memory of that |
50 |
bloodbath. |
51 |
|
52 |
I think the existence of project means people can be referred here (not just |
53 |
told not to discuss something.) It's unfortunate that there is dev snobbery |
54 |
wrt this list (I've seen "take it to project" used almost as an insult and |
55 |
no-one has ever done so) but hopefully that'll change, when more |
56 |
interesting discussions do take place on here. (Responding to non-technical |
57 |
aspects by posting the reply to project instead of dev would help.) |
58 |
|
59 |
I think the commit-reviews have also helped, since there is much more |
60 |
technical discussion going on, and it's keeping people's minds on the |
61 |
day-to-day business of maintaining the tree. |
62 |
|
63 |
On the larger question of how to enforce, I think having a group that is |
64 |
prepared to act publically, iff required, does two things: it takes the |
65 |
onus off of individuals to challenge bad behaviour (which can be hard) and |
66 |
it sends a signal that certain behaviour will not be tolerated-- that there |
67 |
are boundaries, and they will be enforced if necessary. Both are vital to |
68 |
my mind. |
69 |
|
70 |
It helps if the use of such a power is a) carried out as impartially as |
71 |
possible (ie by a group suitably constituted for that purpose, not on one |
72 |
dev's whim, with transparent involvement of all parties in the discussion-- |
73 |
*before* an individual is banned, should it come to it) and b) supported by |
74 |
the Council when the team, as a team, has decided to act. The latter is of |
75 |
course what killed off proctors. |
76 |
|
77 |
Another helpful thing would be if it were not seen as such a major |
78 |
imposition on people's freedoms for *one* thread to be locked. Users don't |
79 |
get all melodramatic about it: why should devs? |
80 |
|
81 |
Passionate discussion is to be expected and indeed welcomed, since that's |
82 |
the nature of voluntary communities: people are involved because they want |
83 |
to be. As such, it shouldn't be a big deal if discussions get heated, so |
84 |
long as they stay civil. The behind-the-scenes activity you mention is |
85 |
important, but there has to be the will to act publically when needed, or |
86 |
unchecked flamewars *will* happen again imo, at some point. That's the |
87 |
nature of the beast. |
88 |
|
89 |
|
90 |
-- |
91 |
gentoo-project@g.o mailing list |