Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for July
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:09:15
Message-Id: 1215608949.12648.205.camel@liasis.inforead.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for July by Donnie Berkholz
1 On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 01:40 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
2 > On 05:30 Tue 01 Jul , Mike Frysinger wrote:
3 > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
4 > > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
5 > > Gentoo dev list to see.
6 >
7 > Here's the proposed agenda. Please respond if I forgot something, it's
8 > unclear, or you have another suggestion. As before, since we have an
9 > agenda in advance we won't be holding an open floor.
10
11 I'll try to clarify my second agenda item on an absolute ban. Also I
12 might edit my private request to make it pure vanilla and send it out,
13 too, so that people may cross check my summary if they wish. If people
14 want that, please respond saying so.
15
16 1. Your summary in the agenda is a fair reading of my request.
17 However, I don't think it's realistic to expect a decision within a week
18 because I think instituting a policy and procedure allowing a complete
19 ban forever from Gentoo requires at the least a change to the Code of
20 Conduct and a review cycle for that.
21
22 2. I can't spell out exactly what people are thinking of when
23 discussing absolute bans, because I get the sense that different people
24 have different ideas about just what we would mean by that. So I think
25 the first step is for someone who advocates such a procedure needs to
26 spell out exactly what it would be and why we would do it and under
27 whose authority, etc. As probably everyone knows, I am absolutely
28 opposed to any such thing, so I am not the person to do this.
29
30 3. So, I don't think we can reach a decision on anything until we are
31 all clear on what we are deciding on.
32
33 4. Here's what I think is meant by a complete ban. *These are only my
34 own inferences from reading between the lines and trying to put
35 different comments together in some coherent fashion.*
36 Under some rather unclear conditions, some combination of
37 devrel/userrel/trustees/infra could decide to impose a complete,
38 permanent ban on a member (user or, I suppose developer) of our
39 community. This would have the following effects:
40 a. The person could post to no gentoo mailing list;
41 b. The person could not post to gentoo bugzilla;
42 c. The person could not participate in #gentoo- IRC
43 channels (although this runs into conflict with individual
44 channel policy);
45 d. The person could not contribute to gentoo (hence my corner
46 case of a security fix) except perhaps through a proxy;
47 e. (Perhaps any upstream projects in which the person banned
48 would be notified of the ban??? --- I'm not sure).
49 Right now, I don't know anymore if what I just described is what is
50 being proposed or not.
51
52 5. I am told that nothing is forever, and that if whatever problems
53 triggered such a ban were corrected, the ban might be lifted. I note,
54 however, that since the banned person could not participate in Gentoo
55 things, as a practical matter we'd never know if anything was corrected
56 or not. (Except through 3rd parties.)
57
58 6. Presumably, all of this would be done in secret and whoever is being
59 hit by such a ban would have no opportunity to respond before the ban's
60 imposition. I suppose there would be a right to appeal to council,
61 assuming council took no part in deciding on the ban.
62
63 7. [Argument] I view this as a pretty major change in how Gentoo
64 operates. So someone needs to clarify my inferences in paragraph 4, and
65 then we should think very carefully about it before allowing for any
66 such practice.
67
68 8. [Argument] I note that we are likely to institute some form of
69 possible moderation for the gentoo-dev mailing list (presumably based on
70 Code of Conduct violations), and if we do that, it effectively satisfies
71 the intent of any absolute ban, but is not nearly so traumatic to the
72 system. I note that this is a minority view among those who have
73 discussed this.
74
75 Donnie,
76 I don't know if that clarifies anything or just makes things more
77 confusing. It's the best I can come up with.
78
79 Regards,
80 Ferris
81 --
82 Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
83 Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)

Attachments

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