Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Kevin F. Quinn" <kevquinn@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:57:46
Message-Id: 20070314085404.00df9b41@c1358217.kevquinn.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo by Grant Goodyear
1 On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:25:23 -0500
2 Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > [...] The previous doc had no "moral weight", so to
5 > speak, because it was imposed on devs without any real discussion, and
6 > that's made it hard to enforce. Moreover, there's long been notable
7 > distrust of devrel, which historically made it hard for them to
8 > enforce it. My belief is that "developer buy-in" would make all of
9 > the difference in how effective a code of conduct would be.
10
11 I think "developer buy-in" is absolutely _critical_ for this to work.
12 Without it, the exercise will create more unnecessary ante between
13 devrel and the rest of devs, and it'll be much less successful, even
14 largely a waste of time.
15
16 For the record, 3 calendar days for comment is a ridiculously small
17 amount of time to achieve this. You could put something in place
18 rapidly, if you want to be seen to be responding to the negative press
19 in various quarters, but it must be on the explicit understanding that
20 the CoC will be developed properly over a longer period of time.
21
22 Short timescale notwithstanding, here are my comments on the document
23 as a whole. I don't have time to be soft and fluffy over this, so
24 forgive me if it comes across too strong.
25
26 I agree firmly with Grant, that the doc should be positive in its
27 wording throughout. I sent a critique of the old etiquette guide to
28 devrel last week making exactly this point, however the new CoC still
29 weighs in first with negatives and punishments. This is what happens
30 when the document is drafted rapidly in response to, for want of a
31 better phrase, a crisis in communications.
32
33 The emphasis should on the positive and on empowerment, not on
34 restriction and subjugation. For example, I'd start the document with
35 something like (written previously as a suggestion for the etiquette
36 guide):
37
38 Developers are representatives of Gentoo; your behaviour as a
39 developer reflects on Gentoo as a whole. These simple etiquette
40 guidelines are here to help you to ensure your own behaviour is a
41 positive asset to the Gentoo project.
42
43 and I'd have statements like:
44
45 Keep all your communications polite and focused on the technical
46 discussion at hand. If a respondent is rude, obnoxious, offensive or
47 annoys you in any way, choose to walk away rather than waste your
48 time responding to it.
49
50 As far as punishments are concerned, I wouldn't focus on specifics, but
51 on the general aim:
52
53 The elected proctors have overall responsibility for ensuring good
54 standards of behaviour in all Gentoo fora (mailing lists, IRC,
55 forums etc). They are tasked with taking appropriate action should
56 problems arise.
57
58 (could equally be 'proctors appointed by the elected council')
59
60 Well, that's about all I can manage for now - don't expect a full
61 critique in such a short timescale...
62
63 --
64 Kevin F. Quinn

Attachments

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