| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 15:21 Fri 11 Jul , Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 4 |
>> - From memory, the CoC was not intended to change *rels authority or |
| 5 |
>> scope of action in any way at all. |
| 6 |
Hmm, pro-active moderation of dev m-l was definitely a change in scope imo. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
>> It was intended to document some |
| 9 |
>> behaviours that anyone at all could use as a reference to remind other |
| 10 |
>> participants in a medium that they we not behaving as other users had a |
| 11 |
>> right to expect. I recall it was based on some of the concepts behind |
| 12 |
>> freenodes catalyst idea. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
That's a good thing to have, and indeed the message was given at the time |
| 15 |
that this was stuff that others should seek to help with, in the same way |
| 16 |
as everyone should try and file bugs or help new users. However the whole |
| 17 |
point of the CoC as a new document was to give the proctors a mandate (and |
| 18 |
it definitely took long enough to achieve the consensus that much more |
| 19 |
proactive moderation was needed.) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
>> See dberkholzs' earlier ideas on CoC enforcement - anyone can do it. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
Yeah, just like anyone can become a dev, or write a kernel.. It takes skill |
| 24 |
and experience (both of the group and of tricky situations) to moderate |
| 25 |
effectively. The forum mods are the examplar within Gentoo imo. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
>> There was no statute of limitations implied with the creation of the |
| 28 |
>> CoC. While the CoC was being drafted, it was recognised that many CoC |
| 29 |
>> breaches come from anger/emotion/misunderstandings and their writers |
| 30 |
>> not sleeping on a post before they make it. |
| 31 |
>> It was also recognised that *rel take in comparison to these |
| 32 |
>> outbursts, a long time to act. The Proctors was created at the same |
| 33 |
>> time as the CoC as a rapid reaction group to deal with rapidly |
| 34 |
>> developing situations and calm things down, leaving *rel to deal with |
| 35 |
>> the persistent offenders in slower time as they always had done. |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>> In short, the publishing of the CoC changed nothing, it only documented |
| 38 |
>> something that had always been implied previously. |
| 39 |
>> |
| 40 |
I disagree as stated above. The CoC was based on the existing principles of |
| 41 |
the Gentoo community, so perhaps in legal terms it could be argued to be |
| 42 |
the same thing. In spirit, and in authority over all participants on all |
| 43 |
Gentoo media, it was very different. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
>> Note that the Forums mods and #gentoo channel ops had been enforcing |
| 46 |
>> the standards in the CoC long before it was written. It follows that |
| 47 |
>> the CoC is just documenting a part of what had been Gentoos' common |
| 48 |
>> law. |
| 49 |
Yeah, for the forums and irc (and I note that #gentoo-dev does not exactly |
| 50 |
live up to the standard of #gentoo wrt professionalism. Focus fair enough, |
| 51 |
everyone needs to talk off-topic, but rank stupidity and power-games?) but |
| 52 |
not for the m-l, so again a change in scope. |
Archives