1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
5 |
|
6 |
<snip various good infos> |
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
> The Code of Conduct was written with the hopes that its existence would |
10 |
> help to curb the flamewars and other general nastiness between people |
11 |
> within the community. The proctors were created to enforce the Code of |
12 |
> Conduct. Their mandate was to be very fast moving and to try to keep |
13 |
> flames from spreading. For some time, I was working with the proctors. |
14 |
> I ended up disliking the bureaucratic direction they were taking and |
15 |
> chose to have myself removed from the group. Since that time, I have |
16 |
> pretty much felt that the proctors *have* taken it upon themselves to |
17 |
> single out and target particular individuals. Whether this was |
18 |
> intentional or not is really beside the point. The perception is all |
19 |
> that really matters, as it is all that gets propagated to the world. I |
20 |
> think this is something that people seem to forget. It doesn't matter |
21 |
> what the real truth is for anything. All that matters "to the world" is |
22 |
> what they perceive. If the perception is that Gentoo is nothing but a |
23 |
> bunch of guys waiting to flame people, it doesn't matter that there |
24 |
> might be 98% of the developer pool that has never engaged in a flamewar. |
25 |
> (Numbers completely made up...) |
26 |
> |
27 |
|
28 |
Not everyone had your perception either - in fact, it would appear that |
29 |
a lot of people have the same perception as me, which is that Neddy saw |
30 |
the potential of this thread to do exactly what has happened, and asked |
31 |
for people to NOT post for 24 hours. Certain individuals decided to |
32 |
respond anyways due to that being their nature, and they got banned. |
33 |
Suddenly because those people have a tendency to do this "proctors are |
34 |
out to get them" - perpetrated by the fact that it is them doing the |
35 |
same thing time and again, it is *NOT* singling anyone out, it is simply |
36 |
responding and attempting to curtail their efforts yet again. So while |
37 |
you have a certain perception - which appears to be the same as the ones |
38 |
the CoC was used against, whether that is good or bad, I have no idea - |
39 |
doesn't mean that *everyone* has your perception. |
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
>> While preventing it is a good goal in itself, writing a CoC based on an |
43 |
>> actual case which has only recently occurred, usually leads to this |
44 |
>> result and damages the whatever good intentions were involved because |
45 |
>> other people will see the similarities as well. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> The Code of Conduct wasn't written in response to a particular case. |
48 |
> The timing suggests that it was written against Ciaran. It wasn't. I |
49 |
> know this will sound a bit harsh, but if we really were trying to just |
50 |
> get rid of Ciaran, we would have just banned him and been done with it. |
51 |
> There wouldn't have been a point in creating yet another project and |
52 |
> staffing it. The goal *was* and still *is* to reduce the flames, no |
53 |
> matter what parties are involved. |
54 |
> |
55 |
>> More than that, it puts a strain on those who are entrusted with enforcing |
56 |
>> the CoC because they will try, with the best motives, to prevent anything |
57 |
>> like that happening again. And they will do it, as the proctors stated |
58 |
>> themselves, pro-actively. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> No, re-actively. If it were proactive, it would be done before the |
61 |
> flames started. The proctors *have* tried to react as quickly as |
62 |
> possible. The problem is that there are no published guidelines, and |
63 |
> decisions from the proctors are completely arbitrary to any outside |
64 |
> observer. I think they've failed. Again, I don't think that the guys |
65 |
> didn't have the best intentions, and I know that some people took my |
66 |
> voicing of their failure as a direct personal assault. It wasn't meant |
67 |
> that way, but I'm not going to apologize for my observations. I see no |
68 |
> point in apologizing for what *I* perceived, even if it does hurt a few |
69 |
> feelings. I just think people are being overly-sensitive. It's |
70 |
> Gentoo's curse. |
71 |
> |
72 |
|
73 |
Overly sensitive? Perhaps you should go re-read your email. And yes, I |
74 |
do believe an apology IS in order. Of course, my beliefs mean nothing, |
75 |
I am a lowly developer, you are a high and mighty council member who is |
76 |
above reproach for your actions. |
77 |
|
78 |
|
79 |
>> The problem is, though: In an asynchronous communications medium, you |
80 |
>> simply cannot pro-actively do anything without bordering on what some |
81 |
>> like to call censorship. You can only *re*act in such a situation. |
82 |
>> |
83 |
>> Even *trying* to act pro-actively will lead to unrest as we've only very |
84 |
>> recently seen it. If we accept my hypothesis of asynchronous |
85 |
>> communication and the implications I described, we come to the conclusion |
86 |
>> that reaction is the most likely way not to open Pandora's Box. |
87 |
> |
88 |
> Attempts to become more proactive were dismissed. One such attempt was |
89 |
> to enforce bans on all mediums. For example, if someone is banned for |
90 |
> 24 hours for their actions on IRC, they should be banned from all of our |
91 |
> media. Why? Because there's nothing keeping the person from just |
92 |
> moving "next door" and starting more problems. We've even seen it |
93 |
> happen in at least one occasion that I am aware of with this list and |
94 |
> the forums. |
95 |
> <more snippage of good informations> |
96 |
|
97 |
> I know I am planning on bringing up discussion on this at the next |
98 |
> Council meeting and we'll simply go from there. |
99 |
> |
100 |
|
101 |
Good to know that it will be discussed. Also, is there a place where we |
102 |
can go to request a council member be removed before their term is up? |
103 |
I do admit that I don't have the greatest of knowledge and due to how |
104 |
"young" I was as a developer during the last election, I didn't vote as |
105 |
I didn't know enough about any of the developers running, and I didn't |
106 |
pay particular attention to the mailing list. Now that I do, I am much |
107 |
better informed and will be voting accordingly. |
108 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
109 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) |
110 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
111 |
|
112 |
iD8DBQFGaAoA1c+EtXTHkJcRAmgeAJ4h9gEKjFdzu4Vtv9HKyE1E6Gk4/QCeOwPG |
113 |
qvxsbLTpB6Xtp7WBYmBrUaw= |
114 |
=nx++ |
115 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
116 |
-- |
117 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |