1 |
I'm CC-ing gentoo-project on this, because some Council members and |
2 |
perhaps others seemed to indicate a preference for moving the discussion |
3 |
there. This response turns out to be much longer than I had intended |
4 |
because I always try to follow my reasoning to see where it goes, |
5 |
whether I like the conclusions or not. |
6 |
|
7 |
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 21:54 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
8 |
> On 12:26 Thu 10 Jul , Ferris McCormick wrote: |
9 |
> > On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 22:49 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
10 |
> > 2. But for both devrel and userrel, the Code of Conduct loses almost |
11 |
> > all its impact unless response is immediate --- CoC's intent, I think, |
12 |
> > is to help keep the mailing lists and #gentoo-dev channel on track |
13 |
> > pretty much in real time. I know this was the original idea behind it, |
14 |
> > and this was one reason we felt we needed people outside devrel to help |
15 |
> > enforce it (devrel is not set up for immediate responses); |
16 |
> |
17 |
> The concepts of poisonous people and repeat offenders are explicitly |
18 |
> mentioned numerous times in the 20070308 council meeting. Here are some |
19 |
> examples: |
20 |
> |
21 |
> <wolf31o2|mobile> kloeri: banning people from the lists, not |
22 |
> necessarily... but reducing the requirements on devrel to suspend |
23 |
> "repeat offenders" might just make them think about their actions before |
24 |
> doing them, and that could decrease the flames a bit |
25 |
> |
26 |
> <kloeri> there's some devs that are persistently poisoning the project |
27 |
> that I want to deal with but that's not just related to mailinglists |
28 |
> |
29 |
> <wolf31o2|mobile> christel: agreed... I think we need to be a bit more |
30 |
> strict on our developers... after all, in the flames involving users, |
31 |
> developers are just as much at fault as the users... perhaps if the devs |
32 |
> didn't respond in kind, the flames would subside much quicker, etc |
33 |
> |
34 |
> <kloeri> I don't want to ban anybody but I do want to be much harder on |
35 |
> devs poisoning things consistently and I'm going to file at least one |
36 |
> devrel bug in that regard |
37 |
> |
38 |
> <kloeri> I don't think we can force people to follow netiquette in |
39 |
> general but we can do more to smack devs up when they're constantly |
40 |
> being a pain in the ass |
41 |
> |
42 |
> |
43 |
> On the topic of userrel's power to ban people from lists, which is a |
44 |
> long-term action: |
45 |
> |
46 |
> <robbat2> on the side of devrel not having 'teeth' - kloeri mentioned |
47 |
> before that infra previously wasn't very responsive to requests to do |
48 |
> things (he cited a userrel request to remove user from the ML) |
49 |
> |
50 |
> <christel> i have a question, if we are to start enforcing etiquette |
51 |
> policy, i think we may want to ensure we have one which also cover users |
52 |
> |
53 |
> > 4. That is, we (devrel, userrel, averyone else perhaps) should use Code |
54 |
> > of Conduct to stop elaborate flame wars before they can burn out of |
55 |
> > control. Whether a flame war ever merits a bug will vary from situation |
56 |
> > to situation, but generally if we have a flame war and wish to impose |
57 |
> > some sort of sanctions because of it, we really need to be hitting |
58 |
> > several people or none with warnings or brief "vacations." |
59 |
> |
60 |
> I agree that we should attempt to take short-term actions in response to |
61 |
> immediate offenses. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> > 5. I am not sure where the current Code of Conduct document is, but |
64 |
> > I'll volunteer to help update it to bring it into line with how we wish |
65 |
> > to use it and to help clarify who has what authority under it, and that |
66 |
> > sort of thing. I have come to support it, and I'd like to help make it |
67 |
> > more effectively used in the rather narrow context for which it was |
68 |
> > designed before we consider extending its reach. |
69 |
> |
70 |
> On the topic of trying to write down every possible way to go about |
71 |
> this, I also agree with them: |
72 |
> |
73 |
> <g2boojum> christel: I actually think you want it to be more vague than |
74 |
> specific. "Don't be a jerk." Please don't define "jerk", or you get a |
75 |
> five-page treatise on why the bahavior doesn't really fit the |
76 |
> definition. |
77 |
> |
78 |
> <seemant> we really need to be careful in adopting document upon |
79 |
> document upon document |
80 |
> |
81 |
|
82 |
I note two things. (1) As I read this, no one here is arguing for |
83 |
anything like a permanent ban; (2) The main thrust in this appears to |
84 |
address *poisonous developers* except for christel who advocates |
85 |
including non-developer users as well. And I don't see anything |
86 |
suggesting that wolf31o2/kloeri/christel/seemant are discussing |
87 |
permanent action, although I don't have the complete context. |
88 |
|
89 |
So, I don't think I have any argument with |
90 |
wolf31o2/kloeri/christel/seemant here, but I think what you cited |
91 |
*supports* my view. Let me quote kloeri again, because he seems to be |
92 |
the strictest among them: |
93 |
|
94 |
<kloeri>: there's some devs that are persistently poisoning the |
95 |
project that I want to deal with but that's not just related to |
96 |
mailinglists |
97 |
|
98 |
<kloeri>: I don't want to ban anybody but I do want to be much harder |
99 |
on devs poisoning things consistently and I'm going to file at least |
100 |
one devrel bug in that regard |
101 |
.... |
102 |
|
103 |
In case you are misunderstanding me (well, from you other response I |
104 |
know you are; I'll try to address that once again below): I don't mind |
105 |
being more vague than specific (I don't ask for a definition of "Don't |
106 |
be a jerk", really). My concern goes more to who determines "jerk-ness" |
107 |
and what we do about it. And it bothers me a lot that a small number of |
108 |
people believe themselves qualified to make that decision in secret. |
109 |
Code of Conduct seems to require that the people applying it are |
110 |
actively working with the "jerks" involved. Even kloeri said he was |
111 |
opening a bug on some developer for all to see. |
112 |
|
113 |
As for seemant's "document on document" --- I agree. But I do insist |
114 |
that our policy documents reflect what we can do and why. Nothing in |
115 |
our current documentation that I can see indicates that we should have a |
116 |
group of people rooting through our archives in order to put together a |
117 |
case for imposing a permanent ban on someone, and if you are really |
118 |
suggesting any such thing, *something* needs to be updated in order to |
119 |
put the community on notice. |
120 |
|
121 |
There's a difference between "document on document" and a real change in |
122 |
policy/procedure without and document changes at all. |
123 |
|
124 |
Please resist the urge to dismiss my description as ad hominum. When I |
125 |
say "root through the archives" I realize that that is not a neutral |
126 |
description of what people have in mind. But I think it is completely |
127 |
accurate. |
128 |
|
129 |
==================================================================== |
130 |
Now, I'm going to change the topic slightly and explain what I think the |
131 |
context of Jorge's proposals is. I ask him to set me straight if I'm |
132 |
getting it wrong. |
133 |
|
134 |
As I understand it, these proposals fit into the context of the Code of |
135 |
Conduct, and no matter what you say, I am certain that the Code of |
136 |
Conduct was put in place to address problems as they occur in order cut |
137 |
off and prevent brush fires. In this context, his permanent ban |
138 |
proposals would be the final sanction after quite a long run of working |
139 |
with someone through the Code of Conduct itself. And I have never seen |
140 |
anything suggesting nor anyone proposing that the Code of Conduct has a |
141 |
long reach into the past to apply to someone now. Code of Conduct |
142 |
addresses current conduct; it does not address past conduct except in |
143 |
the context of what is going on now. I ask Roy or Jorge please to |
144 |
correct me on this. |
145 |
|
146 |
So, if we were to add Jorge's proposals to the Code of Conduct, they |
147 |
would fall into that context, and would never come into play at all |
148 |
unless triggered by some sequence of Code of Conduct violations starting |
149 |
at the time they were adopted. Personally, I would probably not support |
150 |
that, but you might be able to talk me around. |
151 |
|
152 |
Now, as I have said, I think providing for moderating the -dev mailing |
153 |
list fits much more neatly into the Code of Conduct, and I had thought |
154 |
we would have this in place by now (although the push for that seems to |
155 |
have died --- it's sort of funny that right now I'm the one pushing it). |
156 |
As I see it, this would give us the option of shunting all posts from |
157 |
someone to a group of moderators who would either pass the posts or |
158 |
bounce them with an explanation. We already do this on at least one of |
159 |
our mailing lists (gentoo-dev-announce?) so it is nothing new and it |
160 |
works well in the Code of Conduct context. It also solves the problem |
161 |
of future posts from "poisonous people." |
162 |
|
163 |
Donnie suggests elsewhere that moderation is not the answer because the |
164 |
number of "poisonous people" is small and the group tends to be the |
165 |
same, but I don't understand the point. All that says is that the list |
166 |
of people being moderated would be pretty static. To that I answer (1) |
167 |
So what? Does it matter that the moderators have a static list rather |
168 |
than a dynamic one? (2) That's invalid anyway because we've never tried |
169 |
it. We don't know how anyone would react to constant requests to modify |
170 |
a post. So to reject a solution to a perceived problem because "we know |
171 |
it won't work" even though it fits nicely into the Code of Conduct and |
172 |
instead put in place a policy of pre-emptively banning so-called trouble |
173 |
makers strikes me as ill-conceived and premature. |
174 |
|
175 |
Oh, yes. I'm going to stand by my statement that imposing permanent |
176 |
bans in secret without involving the parties involved is cowardly. If |
177 |
we are willing to take such extreme measures against people, we should |
178 |
be willing to face them to discuss the problems and to negotiate less |
179 |
extreme alternatives. It's easy to write an email to someone saying |
180 |
"You're banned from all things Gentoo"; it's somewhat harder to talk to |
181 |
that person about it. |
182 |
|
183 |
I'm also going to stand by my statements that the intent behind the Code |
184 |
of Conduct has always been to provide a way to react quickly to problems |
185 |
as they unfold. This is not explicit in the Code of Conduct, but I |
186 |
think it is a fair inference from the discussions leading up to it. I |
187 |
ask Roy or Jorge to correct me if I am wrong. Or we could just ask |
188 |
Christel; she wrote it and she knows what she had in mind. (Actually, I |
189 |
guess I'll ask Christel if no one else does.) |
190 |
|
191 |
Regards, |
192 |
Ferris |
193 |
-- |
194 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
195 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |