| 1 |
Hi. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: |
| 4 |
> Hiya all, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting |
| 7 |
> given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for |
| 8 |
> Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this |
| 9 |
> proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml |
| 10 |
> comments and suggestions both on- and off-list are appreciated. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in |
| 13 |
> order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at |
| 14 |
> 2100UTC. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I would like to thank a few people for their help in getting it to this |
| 17 |
> stage: the council for review, spb for translating Christelsk into |
| 18 |
> English (with the help of the OED), nightmorph for making it look |
| 19 |
> prettier than plain text in vim (without a fancy colourscheme), and |
| 20 |
> marienz for being sane and reading it over. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I'd also like to thank our Infrastructure team for working with us and |
| 23 |
> answering questions regarding the mechanics of enforcing such a code. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Christelx |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
As others have already said, thank you for doing this work. I'm glad to |
| 29 |
see we're determined to improve communication within Gentoo. However, I |
| 30 |
also think that 3 days is not enough time for this discussion. This |
| 31 |
isn't a technical discussion, but it is in no way less important than |
| 32 |
the discussion about PMS. I only reference that discussion as a |
| 33 |
currently ongoing discussion that I feel can have the same level of |
| 34 |
impact as this discussion. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I agree that we need a code of conduct that applies to both developers |
| 37 |
and users. Furthermore, I also agree developers have additional |
| 38 |
responsibilities. |
| 39 |
In my view, there's one important penalty missing from this code of |
| 40 |
conduct. Actually, the most important penalty - as a last measure, all |
| 41 |
input from a person to the project will be denied. What I mean is that |
| 42 |
for worst offenders, Gentoo must be ready to deny any contribution. |
| 43 |
As I see it, this proposed code penalties for developers start by |
| 44 |
warnings, go to temporary bans from specific communication channels, |
| 45 |
include removal of bugzilla or commit privileges, include dev status |
| 46 |
suspension and as a last resort the removal of dev status. As I see it |
| 47 |
the proposed penalties for users include warnings, suspensions from |
| 48 |
specific communication channels and as a last resort a ban from gentoo |
| 49 |
communication channels. I don't see any reference stating that we won't |
| 50 |
accept any input from banned users. I believe that the greatest reward |
| 51 |
anyone can have to participate in Gentoo is getting credit for work done |
| 52 |
on Gentoo. As such, as a last measure, we must be ready to deny such |
| 53 |
contribution from banned users - even if done through another person. |
| 54 |
To be clear, I'm not suggesting we should, or for that matter can, force |
| 55 |
every member of the community to turn his back to bad user XYZ. What I'm |
| 56 |
proposing is that we don't accept any work from XYZ through any of our |
| 57 |
users or devs. It's every developer and user choice to decide whether or |
| 58 |
not they'll keep interacting with user XYZ outside of our channels, but |
| 59 |
it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org |
| 63 |
Gentoo-forums / Userrel |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
-- |
| 66 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives