1 |
Robin H. Johnson wrote: [Tue Mar 13 2007, 06:05:10PM CDT] |
2 |
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
3 |
> > * Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please? |
4 |
> > Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first |
5 |
> > one that came to mind. |
6 |
> Suggestions welcome. We were stuck for other suitable names, and it was |
7 |
> my own suggestion for proctors, based on the dictionary definition: "an |
8 |
> official charged with various duties, esp. with the maintenance of good |
9 |
> order." [1] |
10 |
|
11 |
Ubuntu uses "Community Council". I suggested "Community Relations". |
12 |
*Shrug* |
13 |
|
14 |
> > * I highly recommend reading http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct |
15 |
> > and our new doc side-by-side. The former provides strong, positive |
16 |
> The Ubuntu guidelines are well-mirrored in the existing etiquette |
17 |
> policy: |
18 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=2 |
19 |
> Read them side by side (Ubuntu and the existing policy) is a little |
20 |
> harder, as the layout is very different, but the core message is the |
21 |
> same. |
22 |
|
23 |
One may argue with the content of either the old etiquette guide or the |
24 |
Ubuntu Code of Conduct, but I suspect that most would agree that the |
25 |
Ubuntu Code of Conduct is both more encouraging and better written. |
26 |
I think it's also much more encouraging and better written than is |
27 |
the proposed doc, as well. |
28 |
|
29 |
> However the existing policy has not worked. Reasons and theories |
30 |
> behind why are rife within Gentoo. |
31 |
|
32 |
You're arguing that a much more punitive doc is required because the |
33 |
previous doc has been ineffective? That's a reasonable argument, but I |
34 |
don't think I agree. The previous doc had no "moral weight", so to |
35 |
speak, because it was imposed on devs without any real discussion, and |
36 |
that's made it hard to enforce. Moreover, there's long been notable |
37 |
distrust of devrel, which historically made it hard for them to enforce it. |
38 |
My belief is that "developer buy-in" would make all of the difference in |
39 |
how effective a code of conduct would be. |
40 |
|
41 |
> > * I understand the desire to act quickly, so that it appears that Gentoo |
42 |
> > is doing something about this problem. However, I agree with those who |
43 |
> > think that a few days isn't really enough time for an adequate |
44 |
> > discussion. For this sort of policy to be effective, devs need to |
45 |
> > agree with it. The Council can still make temporary rules on Thursday |
46 |
> > while allowing the rest of the process to occur more leisurely. |
47 |
> As the council, you have charged us with ensuring a technical |
48 |
> direction for Gentoo. We are working on it, we really are. In the |
49 |
> meantime, we saying that the buck stops here, because right now, |
50 |
> Gentoo is being seriously damaged as a distribution. |
51 |
|
52 |
I didn't mean to suggest that the buck didn't stop w/ the Council, or |
53 |
that the Council wasn't admirably working to set a direction for Gentoo. |
54 |
My apologies for appearing to imply either of those things. I simply |
55 |
think you folks are rushing things more than is really necessary. |
56 |
Take a look at yesterday's threads started by Mr. Long. He was |
57 |
stirring up trouble, and he was not terribly successful because, |
58 |
after a bit of latency, people refused to play along. That's a |
59 |
positive change that I suspect occurred at least in part _because_ |
60 |
the Council is leading here. I think the Council is already making |
61 |
a difference, and that there's time to come up with something beautiful |
62 |
instead of just functional. |
63 |
|
64 |
> > * Having a group of folks separate from devrel who would be doing |
65 |
> > similar things to what devrel does (when devrel isn't involved in |
66 |
> > recruiting) somehow seems a bit silly. I'd much rather we just broaden |
67 |
> > that part of Developer Relations to Community Relations. |
68 |
> I'd to quote from Christel's mail here: |
69 |
> "2. The Proctors is not a new name for Devrel. They would fall under |
70 |
> Devrel territory, but as a newly formed group under the leadership and |
71 |
> supervision of the Council. A decision as to numbers and electing |
72 |
> proctors has not yet been reached -- we are working out these details as |
73 |
> we speak. |
74 |
|
75 |
*Grin* I actually did read Christel's e-mail. I disagree with that |
76 |
part. |
77 |
|
78 |
> (My suggestion here is to select a group of people from a wide |
79 |
> variety of backgrounds within Gentoo, taking care to avoid 'old boys |
80 |
> clubs' and cliques)" |
81 |
> |
82 |
> Simply renaming devrel to commrel and handing them the task won't |
83 |
> solve anything - there will still be complaints that devrel is being |
84 |
> unfair (and is indeed why your Ombuds position exists). As the |
85 |
> council, we will require of the Proctors that they are impartial and |
86 |
> fair. |
87 |
|
88 |
Here's my problem with it: essentially what you're arguing for the |
89 |
proctors to be is the same as what devrel should be (at least for the |
90 |
part of devrel that is supposed to be looking after community |
91 |
standards). If you're creating a new group because of distrust of |
92 |
devrel, then it makes more sense to either fix devrel (assuming it needs |
93 |
fixing), or disband that part, or put your trust in devrel's current |
94 |
incarnation. (My personal view is that we've had a nearly complete |
95 |
turnover in devrel multiple times since the last set of significant |
96 |
problems, so people should give them a chance, but I realize it's not my |
97 |
call to make.) In any event, the fact that devrel/proctor/whatever |
98 |
decisions can be appealed to the council actually does makes claims of |
99 |
bias less tenable. |
100 |
|
101 |
> > * Ubuntu requires that their devs sign a copy of their code of conduct. |
102 |
> > (I assume an electronic signature suffices?) Would that be a good |
103 |
> > idea for us to do something similar? I don't really have a strong |
104 |
> > feeling one way or another. |
105 |
> How do we enforce this on users (both those that were never developers |
106 |
> as well as those that were ex-developers) fairly then? |
107 |
> I see equal enforcement as a benefit here. |
108 |
|
109 |
One might argue that devs should be held to a slightly higher standard |
110 |
than the users. My understanding is that w/ Ubuntu the devs sign the |
111 |
code because they are the standard bearers of the distribution. Their |
112 |
views are going to hold more weight in the community because of that |
113 |
ubuntu.org e-mail address, and by signing the code they provide a good |
114 |
example for the users. The users are expected to play by the same |
115 |
rules, but of course they don't have to sign anything; it's implicit |
116 |
by signing up on a mailing list (or forum, or whatever). |
117 |
|
118 |
*Shrug* I don't really have a strong opinion about this last item. I'm |
119 |
just trying to offer things to think about. |
120 |
|
121 |
Well, that was far too long. *Sigh* Time for me to let others speak, I |
122 |
think. |
123 |
|
124 |
-g2boojum- |
125 |
-- |
126 |
Grant Goodyear |
127 |
Gentoo Developer |
128 |
g2boojum@g.o |
129 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
130 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |