1 |
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 23:17 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
> This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd/4th |
3 |
> Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ |
4 |
> irc.freenode.net) ! |
5 |
> |
6 |
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote |
7 |
> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev |
8 |
> list to see. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review |
11 |
> must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) |
12 |
> before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days |
13 |
> before the meeting. Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be |
14 |
> notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: |
17 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ |
18 |
|
19 |
Two items, or perhaps two views of the same item: |
20 |
|
21 |
1. After some of the comments I've received after mentioning what I |
22 |
think the hold-over item "2) Code of Conduct extent" is, I'm not quite |
23 |
sure what Council is planning to vote on (the comments seem to conflict, |
24 |
for example). Is council planning to vote on changes, possible changes |
25 |
for discussion by the community, or what? If the vote is on the |
26 |
specific questions Donnie raised, is the intent to implement the outcome |
27 |
or to make it the official proposal for discussion? Sorry to come |
28 |
across as somewhat clueless after all the ongoing discussions, but I |
29 |
guess I really am confused at this point. |
30 |
|
31 |
I think I'm going to reraise my request for someone if favor of the |
32 |
proposed changes (which I no longer know quite what are) to put them in |
33 |
the form of a GLEP so we can all discuss the same things. Whatever the |
34 |
changes are, they do represent a policy change, and I still think the |
35 |
community should be able to review the whole thing in complete form |
36 |
before we just put it in place. |
37 |
|
38 |
2. Last February, Council determined that for Code of Conduct |
39 |
enforcement, |
40 |
"The basic idea is to just promote individual devs responding to |
41 |
people who are being jerks. Privately, unless things get out of hand." |
42 |
|
43 |
Where I think "promote" == "get together a core culture of people". But, thus: |
44 |
"My hope is that with no team of people assigned to doing this stuff, we |
45 |
can actually build a culture and get more people participating rather |
46 |
than having "the people who do that stuff" and everyone else." |
47 |
|
48 |
{both quotes are Donnie's} |
49 |
|
50 |
At least, that is what I infer from the summary of the February Council |
51 |
meeting and the emails on the topic. |
52 |
|
53 |
I am also told currently posted Code of Conduct dated March 15, 2007 is current |
54 |
and in no need of revision. But I don't see it. Even if we agree that this |
55 |
informal "core group" may be called proctors, they have no disciplinary |
56 |
authority because (1) Council expected them to work by replying to inappropriate |
57 |
email (on gentoo-dev) by requesting the jerk in question to quit being a jerk. |
58 |
This is a mild form of mailing list moderation, but does not extend to anything more; |
59 |
(2) Nor could it, because this group I think is pretty much self selected and so its |
60 |
members might not even be known (so far as I know, there are people doing this today |
61 |
as called for last February), and so would have no way of getting infra to apply |
62 |
any sort of suspension. But the Code of Conduct talks of actions by the proctors |
63 |
which I think the group as described last February have no capability of carrying out. |
64 |
|
65 |
Userrel might have such authority after the last Council meeting, but if so, the |
66 |
CoC should be updated to mention that. |
67 |
|
68 |
I believed that Code of Conduct had actually been updated, but everyone tells me |
69 |
not. |
70 |
=============================================================== |
71 |
|
72 |
Now, here's why my two items might be two sides of the same question. It seems |
73 |
to me that current Code of Conduct as interpreted last February and perhaps modified |
74 |
last Council meeting cannot possibly be stretched to encompass Donnie's questions from |
75 |
the 13th of last month. After all, last February the Council made the Code of Conduct |
76 |
*milder* than it currently reads, with the intent of rebuilding our culture gently but |
77 |
firmly by "training" jerks not to be jerks. I find it very hard to read a harsh, |
78 |
user-only policy into that. |
79 |
|
80 |
If the "extent of CoC enforcement" item is talking about something outside the CoC or |
81 |
a major change to the CoC from last February, then all the more reason for someone to |
82 |
put it in the form of a GLEP just like any other consequential change. |
83 |
|
84 |
|
85 |
Regards, |
86 |
Ferris |
87 |
-- |
88 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
89 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |