Re: [gentoo-dev] Proctors - improve the concept or discard it?

Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> I'm sure they have the best intentions but I've never seen any clear
> guidelines for them. They use their best judgement what to handle and
> what not to but due to language barriers, cultural differences etc. it's
> difficult to judge.
The guideline, as far as I understood it, was (and is?) to ban people who dont 
abide by the time-outs.
And the guideline for time-outs, as far as I understood it, was (and is?) to 
use them when a thread, as obviously as this one, is neither technical, nor 
productive but a flame war.
And yes, in my opinion, it already was one to the time the warning was sent 
out.

> Do we really need moderation on the list? Or could we just literally
> moderate ourselves instead? Could we try and succeed to be just ignore
> some flames instead of adding oil to the fire?
As the incidents in the last few months showed, there is a handfull of people 
who seem to love flame wars, or dont have anything better to do, so:
No, ignoring them does not work, as it just is not what people are doing,
which is why proctors where brought into existence:
To make people calm down by forcing a delay, which likely will make them stop 
replying.

> When I first read the CoC I had just read about the entire Ciaran-incident
> on the respective bugs, Forums, mailinglists, blogs and many other
> sources. CoC, while not bad in itself, seemed (and still seems) to me
> like a "Lex Ciaran" - a document with that what I had just read clearly
> in mind and targetted at preventing it.
The CoC is the legal basis for the proctors (as well as the other teams).

> The problem is, though: In an asynchronous communications medium, you
> simply cannot pro-actively do anything without bordering on what some
> like to call censorship. You can only *re*act in such a situation.
The reaction was to delay the thread, and therefore pro-actively forcing 
people to calm down. There's the hidden pro-active part.
Of course, by anyone who felt the urgent need to reply anyway, this effect was 
destroyed.
Furthermore, it was reversed by those replys containing the self-fulfilling 
prophecy that there is no effect which got things really going.

> If, after both sides were investigated properly, the complaining party is
> found to be exaggerating or too easily offended, disciplinary action
> should be taken against it.
I am strictly against any way to punish a complainer, except where it is 
slander or similar, where in turn, the slandered person might complain via 
the same way.
Punishment for exaggeration leads to arbitrariness.
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list