Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@g.o>
To: gentoo-council <gentoo-council@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Extent of Code of Conduct enforcement
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:20:20
Message-Id: 1216063214.2588.28.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] Extent of Code of Conduct enforcement by Donnie Berkholz
1 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
2 > Can people be entirely banned from Gentoo?
3
4 At least from a technical pov I tend to say "no". Implementing a
5 "feature" we (as in Gentoo) cannot technically enforce is useless, as
6 enforcing it would require lots of manpower and manual interaction which
7 we need more urgently in lots of other areas of Gentoo.
8
9 > - What would such a ban include? Some ideas -- the person could not:
10 > - Post to any gentoo mailing list;
11 > - Post to gentoo bugzilla;
12 > - Participate in #gentoo- IRC channels;
13 > - Contribute to gentoo (hence my corner case of a security fix) except
14 > perhaps through a proxy;
15 >
16 > - Why would we do it?
17
18 don't know, I don't see the need. People play wanker on #gentoo -> they
19 get banned from that channel. People play wanker in the forums -> they
20 get a warning and finally their account will get locked. I think these
21 mechanisms are quite effective and proved to be good (tm), creating a
22 next step of a "full Gentoo ban" isn't needed (nor doable) from my pov.
23
24 > - Under whose authority would it happen?
25
26 As people who would be banned are no developers any more this clearly
27 falls under Userrels authority.
28
29 > - Would it be reversible? What conditions would cause this?
30
31 It needs to be reversible, people change, their attitude changes.
32 Therefore we would need to implement a process which allows every banned
33 user (after a fixed timeframe following the ban) to let userrel re-check
34 the ban.
35
36 > Since the banned person couldn't participate in Gentoo, we'd never
37 > know whether anything changed.
38
39 They could still talk to people on IRC or via mail - or request to
40 re-check if their ban is still necessary or if they deserve a second
41 chance as described above.
42
43 > - How would one appeal this? Would there be a chance to respond before
44 > the ban?
45
46 As such a ban would require fast intervention to just stop people
47 playing wankers we would need to have different steps of bans, temporary
48 bans followed by a longer ban and permanent bans as the last resort.
49 Having several steps (i.e. short bans for a few days or a week at last)
50 before someone gets banned permanently there's no need to be able to
51 appeal these decisions - except a permanent ban would require such a
52 process being in place.
53
54 > - Would moderating the gentoo-dev mailing list obsolete this concept?
55
56 It wouldn't obsolete this concept, but for now I see no need to ban
57 people from interacting with our (developer) community - besides that I
58 question if such a ban would be technically doable.
59 As we had the most problems with our dev-ml in the past (and we have
60 other working mechanisms like operators on #gentoo or mods in forums
61 already in place) putting the ml on moderation would help and *might*
62 obsolete the need for bans if the implementation works and will be
63 accepted.
64
65 Tobias

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-council] Extent of Code of Conduct enforcement Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>