1 |
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 10:53 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
> On 13:12 Thu 08 Nov , Ferris McCormick wrote: |
3 |
> > This is a big step forward, and if we had a binary situation: either |
4 |
> > accept it as written or go back to the drawing board, I'd prefer to |
5 |
> > accept. Thus my comments which follow are best viewed as requests for |
6 |
> > clarification or of personal inclination. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Thanks for your comments, and I want to reiterate that we certainly do |
9 |
> not have a binary situation in that respect. What we do have is |
10 |
> preliminary text that could use suggestions like yours. =) |
11 |
> |
12 |
> > 1. Are 3 (or 5) people sufficient to ensure quick reactions to mailing |
13 |
> > list questions or IRC? This is minor, and starting with 3 to put the |
14 |
> > process in place and tune it as needed probably works. My concern is |
15 |
> > longer term. Speaking for myself, for instance, I almost never see |
16 |
> > problems on IRC until they are long over, and I suspect this is the case |
17 |
> > for most people. Similarly (usually) with mail. And I don't think we |
18 |
> > want a corps of full-time monitors. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I understand your point, which amne also brought up. My main concerns |
21 |
> with a larger group are that it will be unable to maintain a cohesive |
22 |
> view of the CoC and that anyone who feels like it can join up. |
23 |
> |
24 |
I think I agree that fewer is better in this case. Starting with 3 |
25 |
growing to 5 probably works about right. At least until we have some |
26 |
experience. |
27 |
|
28 |
> > 2. As to forums, I've never seen that the forum moderators need any |
29 |
> > help with what they are doing. Actually, in a sense I think the forums |
30 |
> > are kind of a model for what you are proposing. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> I agree. Should we add a note that already-moderated places (#gentoo, |
33 |
> forums) should not need additional moderation? |
34 |
> |
35 |
|
36 |
Sure. |
37 |
|
38 |
--- Snip for economy --- |
39 |
|
40 |
> > 5. Do you perceive the enforcement group as an arm of the Council |
41 |
> > rather than as a group of its own? Previously, the Council did not seem |
42 |
> > to know what to do when the Proctors' views of Code of Conduct and |
43 |
> > Councils' *individual* views of Code of Conduct seemed to diverge. This |
44 |
> > led to the unusual step of simply eliminating the Proctors. I rather |
45 |
> > doubt that you would find much enthusiasm for working in such an |
46 |
> > environment again. So, what you are proposing probably works for any |
47 |
> > given Council (assuming continuing commitment from council to council). |
48 |
> > I think my concern is addressed to (a) continuing commitment; (b) |
49 |
> > consistency and continuity. The Gentoo community need to understand the |
50 |
> > rules so that they become a part of our culture, so that even with |
51 |
> > annual assessment, we should expect evolution rather than catastrophe. |
52 |
> > |
53 |
> > (This was all a bit muddled. That's sure indication that so are my |
54 |
> > thoughts, so take it for what it's worth.) |
55 |
> > |
56 |
> > 6. "Developers can be members of both [Council and Code of Conduct |
57 |
> > team]." This is the one sentence I take exception to. It's better to |
58 |
> > work for more community involvement rather than allow concentration |
59 |
> > resulting in personnel wearing multiple hats. |
60 |
> |
61 |
> The above two points tie together, in my mind. It would be preferable to |
62 |
> have at least one of the team members be on council to ensure that their |
63 |
> CoC interpretations are consistent. |
64 |
> |
65 |
|
66 |
Nice point. You sold me, assuming agreement among the Council members |
67 |
(or at least agreement to give great weight to the reading from whoever |
68 |
is a member of both.) |
69 |
|
70 |
> That gave me a new idea. What if the first 2-4 weeks, the team did not |
71 |
> actually take any action but just documented what its actions would have |
72 |
> been? This would give people a feeling for what level of enforcement |
73 |
> we'd see for the CoC. |
74 |
> |
75 |
|
76 |
I like this. |
77 |
|
78 |
> > 7. Off the top of my head, why not allow (or require) that one member |
79 |
> > of the team be a user but not a developer? Userrel, all, comments? |
80 |
> |
81 |
> If we could find a user with a strong enough grasp of Gentoo culture, |
82 |
> I'm open to the idea, and I'd like to make any users adjunct staff |
83 |
> members during their term to avoid that annoying "Users don't have power |
84 |
> over me" syndrome. |
85 |
> |
86 |
|
87 |
I have one or two ideas, and I would guess so does Christel. |
88 |
|
89 |
> Thanks, |
90 |
> Donnie |
91 |
|
92 |
Very positive, |
93 |
Regards, |
94 |
Ferris |
95 |
-- |
96 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
97 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc) |