1 |
On 13:24 Fri 25 Jul , Ferris McCormick wrote: |
2 |
> Eventually, this was revised here: |
3 |
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-council/msg_ba125098c929ea31f34051dfb009d436.xml |
4 |
> advantage that it did not require any approval at all, but it most |
5 |
> certainly *did* imply revisions to the Code of Conduct itself, because |
6 |
> effectively it stripped out any authority from the (non-existent) |
7 |
> proctors and instead identify a small group of people who would take |
8 |
> aside CoC violators (in private) and suggest they quit doing whatever |
9 |
> they were doing wrong. For the record here, my response to this was: |
10 |
> |
11 |
> [quote] |
12 |
> 'Nice idea and worth a try. I have one concern. Since we are talking |
13 |
> CoC here, I'd like to emphasise that "assholeness" should be determined |
14 |
> within the guidelines of the CoC. Not by some person's own conception |
15 |
> of "assholeness" --- I'd hate to see a flame war about just who is being |
16 |
> the asshole in any particular instance.' |
17 |
> [/quote] |
18 |
> |
19 |
> As best as I can tell, this proposal was *APPROVED*, and at 20080214, was left like this: |
20 |
> |
21 |
> ================================ |
22 |
> Code of Conduct enforcement |
23 |
> --------------------------- |
24 |
> Promote individual devs responding to people who are being jerks. |
25 |
> Keep responses private, unless that person gets out of hand. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> dberkholz will get things going. |
28 |
> To help or get advice, contact him. |
29 |
> =================================== |
30 |
> |
31 |
> I think the final intent was that Council expected the Code of Conduct |
32 |
> to be pretty much self-enforcing, driven by members of the community who |
33 |
> cared enough to take violators aside and calm them down, beat them over |
34 |
> the head, or whatever. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> So, my question remains: Did this resolution ever make it into a |
37 |
> revision of the Code of Conduct or not. I thought it did, but can't |
38 |
> find it. If it didn't, it probably should, and this entire discussion |
39 |
> should be interpreted with that intent. |
40 |
|
41 |
Let me share my interpretation to make sure we're on the same page. The |
42 |
whole idea here is that there is no new official global response team |
43 |
like the proctors. |
44 |
|
45 |
Nothing changed about the abilities & authorities of individual groups |
46 |
that were already in charge of their specific areas. |
47 |
|
48 |
> In passing, I'll note something else. The underlying assumption of the |
49 |
> entire Code of Conduct threads over five months last year was that: |
50 |
> |
51 |
> [quote from Donnie] |
52 |
> |
53 |
> A primary focus of CoC enforcement is deterrence from continued |
54 |
> violation, so permanent action is unnecessary. Thus, what seems |
55 |
> necessary is a way to take rapid, private, temporary action. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> [/quote from Donnie] |
58 |
> |
59 |
> The focus here was on errant developers, but by validating userrel's role in |
60 |
> all of this, we know it now explicitly applies to the entire community. |
61 |
> However, the underlying "immediate and temporary" assumptions still apply, |
62 |
> I would think. Anything else would be a fundamental change as best as I |
63 |
> can tell, and discussion should be framed and clearly understood on that |
64 |
> context. |
65 |
|
66 |
It's always desirable for people to change their behavior, but |
67 |
unfortunately it doesn't always happen. |
68 |
|
69 |
Here, the first sentence you quoted is the important one. The second |
70 |
sentence only deals with the deterrence part of the first sentence. |
71 |
Nothing is addressed about the permanent action, because that email was |
72 |
about creating a new proctors-like group, and devrel/userrel already |
73 |
existed for permanent action. |
74 |
|
75 |
-- |
76 |
Thanks, |
77 |
Donnie |
78 |
|
79 |
Donnie Berkholz |
80 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
81 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |