| 1 |
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 15:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> We should be enforcing this on all channels. It shouldn't be "OK" to be |
| 3 |
> an asshole on one medium and not another. |
| 4 |
Ack. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> > -What are the appeal options if any? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Council. |
| 9 |
Then it should perhaps be mentioned in the proposal. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> > So the current situation is: We have both devs and non-devs disregard |
| 12 |
> > normal code of conduct. We have a written policy about dev behaviour but |
| 13 |
> > haven't enforced it on several occasions so now we are going to try |
| 14 |
> > regulating the users instead? Shouldn't we just try to behave ourselves |
| 15 |
> > before trying to make others behave? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Uhh, no. This gets enforced on devs and users alike. |
| 18 |
I wouldn't bring it up in the first place, but we've had previous examples |
| 19 |
with devs calling other devs not so kind things and to my knowledge it didn't |
| 20 |
result in any action. I seem to remember a rather active dev taking it not so |
| 21 |
lightly, resulting in one less dev and no action from Devrel/Council. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> > As long as Devrel doesn't have the power to enforce it I don't see a |
| 25 |
> > point. If the Council has the power to enforce this fairly, then great. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> As many people have stated before, the Council really has as much power |
| 28 |
> as its willing to take. Up until now, we've been very leery of taking |
| 29 |
> on any form of power to reduce the chance of people calling us some kind |
| 30 |
> of cabal. At the same time, we've realized that we were elected to do |
| 31 |
> *exactly this sort of thing* so we've decided collectively to "step up" |
| 32 |
> and take charge. If people don't like it, they can vote for other |
| 33 |
> people next time around. ;] |
| 34 |
I look forward to seeing that. However given that the current Council have |
| 35 |
been active for 8+ months with no action on this subject, I don't see any |
| 36 |
harm in giving proper time to discuss this? In the mean time we could just |
| 37 |
try to enforce the dev Etiquette policy that we've had a long time. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> > As for -dev you're right. But again the proposal is so vague it only |
| 40 |
> > mentions "Gentoo's official communication infrastructure". I take this to |
| 41 |
> > mean all mailing lists, forums, IRC. So in my eyes it will affect general |
| 42 |
> > users as well. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> I look at anything with a gentoo.org address as our house. While some |
| 45 |
> might disagree with this statement, I'm pretty sure this is the stance |
| 46 |
> we're taking on it. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
So this doesn't apply to the Gentoo IRC channels? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) |
Archives