| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 14:08 -0700, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ferris McCormick posted |
| 3 |
> <1137006259.24481.28.camel@××××××××××××××××××.com>, excerpted below, on |
| 4 |
> Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:04:19 +0000: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > B. "Jurisdiction" --- why this is something for devrel to consider (policy |
| 7 |
> > violation or whatever). This is a categorization of the report, not an |
| 8 |
> > argument why it is valid. (This could be handled by a predefined set of |
| 9 |
> > reasons by an existing Bugzilla field similar to "Component," but |
| 10 |
> > currently it is not.) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> An enumeration or list of examples would be rather helpful, here. Since |
| 13 |
> you say it could be a predefined list, enumerating it in the RFC, or at |
| 14 |
> least giving a couple examples, shouldn't be unreasonable. Keep in mind |
| 15 |
> that it's possible/likely the filer will have never filed something like |
| 16 |
> this before, so the vague guideline as stated simply isn't all that much |
| 17 |
> help. You want it concrete, make it so. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This is a reasonable request, but I don't have such a list right now. |
| 21 |
Here are some annotated examples of the sorts of things devrel is |
| 22 |
interested in, so you can use these as guides: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
1. Abusive behavior, IRC. (Recurring abusive behavior) |
| 25 |
2. Abusive behavior, email. |
| 26 |
3. Abusive/inappropriate responses on normal bug reports. |
| 27 |
4. Abusive behavior, forums. (The forum moderators almost always handle |
| 28 |
this sort of problem pretty quickly.) |
| 29 |
5. Other etiquette violation, IRC. (Recurring violation of a #gentoo |
| 30 |
IRC channel's etiquette policy, not covered by abusive behavior. If you |
| 31 |
wish to report such a violation, please keep language and cultural |
| 32 |
differences in mind.) |
| 33 |
6. IRC policy violation (abuse of operator status in violation of |
| 34 |
policy on particular channel). |
| 35 |
7. Disruptive behavior, IRC (Well, maybe. An example might be a |
| 36 |
running feud between two developers where the participants don't mind, |
| 37 |
but the cumulative effect is to make the channel unusable for others.) |
| 38 |
8. QA dispute between developers. (One developer (or user) believes |
| 39 |
another has violated policy, and they cannot resolve their differences |
| 40 |
by normal means (discussion, appeal to project lead, etc.)) |
| 41 |
9. QA violation, reported by QA. (QA believes developer has seriously |
| 42 |
violated policy but cannot resolve the issue with the developer |
| 43 |
directly.) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
This list is not necessarily complete, nor is everything on the list |
| 46 |
necessarily appropriate for reporting to devrel. But it should give |
| 47 |
some idea of the sorts of things that are helpful for briefly explaining |
| 48 |
why devrel has jurisdiction and to give a clue how the reporter wants |
| 49 |
the bug to be processed. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> Otherwise... unpleasant subject matter, but I'm glad someone's dealing |
| 52 |
> with it. The rest seems reasonable enough. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> -- |
| 55 |
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 56 |
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 57 |
> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
| 58 |
> http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
| 63 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel) |
Archives