Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
To: Gentoo Developers <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:00:17
1 I can't respond to the following in proper form, because it came in
2 during a 4 hour window when the mail server was bouncing all my
3 gentoo-xx@g.o email (my server didn't like the list server move,
4 so I changed server, too).
6 Anyway, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote at Tue, 08 Jan 2008
7 15:03:25 -0800
8 ====================================
9 ====================================
10 On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 19:59 +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote:
11 > 3) Most devrel requests seem really to relate to CoC violations. Would
12 > you like us to bounce those to the CoC people, process them using CoC
13 > rules, or keep doing what we are doing now (generally, close them with a
14 > note explaining why or mediate them)? (I'm talking about the "He's
15 > being rude/sarcastic/disrespectful" sorts of things which really need to
16 > be processed immediately and merit a warning or brief suspension if
17 > anything.)
19 How hard is it to realize that the CoC is a superset of DevRel (and
20 other) policies?
22 If someone breaks DevRel policy ("be good to each other") that also
23 happens to be a CoC rule and someone reports it to DevRel, they should
24 actually *do* something about it, rather than trying to pass it off onto
25 someone else or spend months engaging in witless banter about whether
26 there's even an issue or not. After all, when the CoC was enacted,
27 never once was it said that it would override DevRel or otherwise make
28 DevRel invalid. If someone comes to DevRel with a problem, you're
29 supposed to try to work out the issue with them. It really is that
30 simple. There's no need for some kind of territorial pissing match or
31 passing the buck.
33 Someone came to DevRel for help because they think DevRel can help them
34 and it is DevRel's job to do so. The CoC was put in place to allow for
35 catching bad behaviors *before* they would get to DevRel, without
36 requiring someone to necessarily "report" the issue. Once a developer
37 has reported an issue to DevRel, it's their job to work it using their
38 own policies, as it then becomes a DevRel issue. The two things serve
39 somewhat different purposes. The CoC was designed to curb or prevent
40 bad behavior, where DevRel's job is to prevent bad behavior from
41 recurring, or taking disciplinary action when necessary for repeat
42 offenders.
43 ============================================
44 ============================================
45 Chris,
46 With all due respect, for some reason we don't have Proctors anymore to enforce
47 the CoC. Thus, things we would expect the proctors to catch and handle under CoC
48 get sent to devrel instead. All I am doing is wondering out loud (now that CoC
49 is coming alive again) if we should start processing these under CoC rules. I'm
50 asking Council because CoC belongs to Council, but I do not expect a ruling,
51 just perhaps an interesting discussion. See, these things can't be caught before
52 they get to devrel because you ensured there would be no one to catch them ---
53 you are the one who wanted to kill off the proctors, after all.
55 I am asking a question as a member of the devrel confres subproject and as
56 an interested developer. Please do not take off after devrel just because I
57 like to think out loud.
59 CoC is a superset of the "be good to each other" guideline, but enforcement
60 rules are quite different.
62 Regards.
63 Ferris
64 --
65 Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
66 Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel)


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