RE: [gentoo-council] User Relations authority

[Chrissy Fullam]

Top posting ... I agree with dberkholz in every comment. 

Let's try to leave such strong emotions and implications at the door while
we appreciate that everyone can have an opinion but said opinion is their
own or potentially that of a small group. None of us speaks for everyone and
we'll never reach 100% community agreement on any topic. Council was however
elected by the developers so while they cannot speak for everyone perhaps I
should clarify that they can make decisions on our behalf and I for one
appreciate that they value our thoughts. :)

Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations 


> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 13:55 Thu 10 Jul     , Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 11:49 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> > > To summarize, my proposal was that we should have a method to "keep
> > > away" people that do nothing but cause continuous issues - this is
> > > about the "poisonous people" that are long-time and repeated
> offenders.
> > > As I've stated back then "I believe that the greatest reward anyone
> > > can have to participate in Gentoo is getting credit for work done on
> Gentoo.
> > > As such, as a last measure, we must be ready to deny such
> > > contribution from banned users."
> >
> > I don't think I've ever seen anyone at all who does nothing but
> > continually causs "issues" and so qualifies as poisonous.  We have a
> > large community and everyone is abrasive at times, and everyone gets
> > abuse at times (even me, but probably not from people you have in mind
> > as "poisonous", if you have any).  But I consider this just a normal
> > part of doing business and can't imagine what it would take to get me
> > to make a formal complaint about it.
> >
> > For example, I have had little contact with Linus Torvalds, but I have
> > had a fair amount of contact with David Miller (davem --- the sparc
> > kernel developer).  I'm pretty sure that davem would seem more
> > "poisonous" to us than anyone we've ever seen in Gentoo, and by
> > reputation, Linus makes davem look like a pussy cat.  (Although davem
> > seems to be mellowing.)  But I rather doubt that if for some reason
> > either one started participating in Gentoo that we'd consider banning
> > them or refusing their contributions. :)
>
> I agree that the Linux kernel community has different standards and
> expectations than the Gentoo community, and that's exactly the point.
> You act within the context of your community. I don't care if people in
> northern Canada practice cannibalism, it's not OK around these parts.
>
> > > | 4.  Here's what I think is meant by a complete ban.  *These are
> > > | only my own inferences from reading between the lines and trying
> > > | to put different comments together in some coherent fashion.*
> > > |      Under some rather unclear conditions, some combination of
> > > |      devrel/userrel/trustees/infra could decide to impose a
> complete,
> > > |      permanent ban on a member (user or, I suppose developer) of our
> > > |      community.  This would have the following effects:
> > >
> > > Some people seem to support that userrel can make such decisions on
> > > its own. As I've stated, as an userrel member, I was willing to
> > > involve other teams. We also need to agree to which body should
> appeals be sent.
> >
> > I would not support giving userrel that authority or userrel+devrel
> > that authority.  Now, I oppose this absolutely.  But in general I
> > don't thing any group(s) in gentoo should have such sweeping authority
> > to make such major decisions secretely in private.  If we want to
> > impose such a ban on someone, we really should have the courage and
> > resolve to work in public.
>
> I dislike your use of emotional words to imply that anyone you disagree
> with is cowardly.
>
> > > My comment about this has always been that in extreme cases and if
> > > we have a close partnership with upstream, we might want to share
> > > with them our decision and let them judge for themselves if the
> > > actions that made such person be banned on Gentoo are relevant to them
> or not.
> > >
> > Why?  It's hardly our concern who participates upstream.
>
> I agree with this, as I mentioned above with the context of the community.
>
> > > The point here is that such a decision is not terminal. If people
> > > feel more comfortable about it, don't call it permanent bans, but
> > > call it a ban until further notice.
> >
> > What's the practical difference?  And why not make it something
> > sensible and definite?  The authority to lift an indefinite ban most
> > likely rests with whoever imposed it in the first place, and that
> > doesn't provide for much.
>
> I dislike the implication that anything else is not sensible.
>
> > > I assume what you mean here is that there would be no attempt of
> > > mediation with said person. As my proposal states this is an
> > > *extreme* decision meant only for *long-time* and *repeated*
> > > offenders. When we get there, there's no possibility for mediation -
> > > that's something that would have been tried a long time before we get
> there.
> >
> > See above.  And as i said, I've never seen anyone who fits such a
> > profile, so perhaps we're spending a lot of time here defining how we
> > treat the empty set.
>
> I think it's clear that your opinion does not necessarily represent the
> opinions of everyone else in Gentoo, so arguing that your empty set is
> Gentoo's empty set is not valid.
>
> > > | 8.  [Argument]  I note that we are likely to institute some form
> > > | of possible moderation for the gentoo-dev mailing list (presumably
> > > | based on Code of Conduct violations), and if we do that, it
> > > | effectively satisfies the intent of any absolute ban, but is not
> > > | nearly so traumatic to the system.  I note that this is a minority
> > > | view among those who have discussed this.
> > >
> > > Ferris, I do hope the moderation will prevent so many abuses on the
> > > mls, but it alone won't change people's mindsets and actions.
> > > Although posts can be moderated, it doesn't mean that people will
> > > stop trying to send abusive mails and that a few might even get to
> > > the lists. Also, it doesn't address irc, bugzilla and other mediums
> abuse.
> >
> > If we have your hypothetical poisonous person running around loose
> > somewhere and put him (or her) into a must-be-moderated list for
> > gentoo-dev, the problem there should disappear because posts will be
> > shunted to the moderators.  #gentoo-dev is a more general concern than
> > just a few specific people and falls generally under Code of Conduct
> > for immediate correction.  Bugzilla looks like a bigger problem than
> > it is, because when it explodes it can be spectacular.  But it is not
> > limited to one or two people, either (even I have lost control on
> > bugzilla, and I generally appear pretty calm and rational, I think).
>
> I don't think moderation is the answer, because it's a very small group of
> people who become regular, recurring problems.
>
> > Jorge, you know, if you and I were both forced to come up with a list
> > of five poisonous people to consider for application of such a ban, I
> > suspect their intersection might be empty.  What then?
> >
> > It is my view that both userrel and devrel may enforce the Code of
> > Conduct,
>
> I agree.
>
> > but also Code of Conduct should be limited to quick response to
> > immediate situations.
>
> I do not agree. Just because something happened in the past does not mean
> it never happened and should not be considered.
>
> > I think devrel and userrel are the wrong bodies to be rooting around
> > in the past if that's what you are proposing.  Neither of us is set up
> > to do that.  We act on current behavior, and if discipline is
> > warranted, then we can take to past behavior for guidance if we wish.
> > I don't think anyone in Gentoo currently has the charter to look at
> > the community and say "X has been causing trouble long enough ---
> > let's just boot X."  Nor do I think we want anyone to have such
> > authority --- surely we're more tolerant and flexible than that.
>
> Again I dislike your implications that anyone who would act on past
> behavior is intolerant and inflexible. Please stop using implications like
> this.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Donnie
>
> Donnie Berkholz
> Developer, Gentoo Linux
> Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

-- 
gentoo-council@l.g.o mailing list