1 |
Hello Chris! |
2 |
|
3 |
I'm shortening your mail greatly and respond to only a few aspects because |
4 |
the two of us seem to agree on a great deal of those points you made. |
5 |
|
6 |
On Thursday, June 7, 2007 01:45:43 AM Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
7 |
[Proctors] |
8 |
> Well, they've been asked to write guidelines for Council approval, as |
9 |
> well as changes to the Code of Conduct. Neither of which have been |
10 |
> done. |
11 |
|
12 |
I'm well aware of that. Of course, one could argue that the council should |
13 |
have a) set a fixed date for those tasks and b) monitored the |
14 |
progress. :-) |
15 |
|
16 |
> Why do we need the -dev mailing list? How much real "development" (or |
17 |
> even discussion about it) happens on the mailing list? |
18 |
|
19 |
Rarely any. We still need it, though, because it's the only |
20 |
development-related mailinglist that everyone may at least read. |
21 |
|
22 |
That said, before I became a dev I've read this list but I've never posted |
23 |
to it because I felt it was inappropriate. I've contacted either |
24 |
individual devs or herds and that worked fairly well. |
25 |
|
26 |
Users have lots of ways to communicate with us - our mail aliases, the |
27 |
other mailinglists, the forums and what not. So let's make this list |
28 |
read-only for anyone but devs and staff (as was suggested by others here |
29 |
as well) and keep it. |
30 |
|
31 |
> Most of the traffic on this list is political in nature and simply |
32 |
> doesn't belong on this list. Since we've pretty much shown over the |
33 |
> past couple years that the development list isn't being used properly, |
34 |
> why have it? |
35 |
|
36 |
Because devs will need a place to vent sometimes. -core is not the list |
37 |
for such purposes. Furthermore, we generally don't need to hide (and we |
38 |
shouldn't either) from our users. Thus, there should be a mailinglist for |
39 |
all to read. Just like we have #gentoo-dev on IRC. |
40 |
|
41 |
> I mean no disrespect to people's age, but I think part of the problem |
42 |
> why we have such a hard time, collectively, acting like adults is we |
43 |
> aren't adults. |
44 |
|
45 |
Thank you for bringing this up. I didn't want to state it that clearly |
46 |
because some will feel it's unfair but I think that's indeed one of the |
47 |
problems. |
48 |
|
49 |
> It isn't their fault, it is just simply a |
50 |
> lack of life experience. We simply cannot reasonably expect everyone |
51 |
> to act like a level-headed thirty year old computer professional. |
52 |
|
53 |
Exactly. About ten to twelve years ago, I often reacted like Ciaran, too. |
54 |
|
55 |
Twice, I was almost fired because of that. Fortunately for me, there were |
56 |
two colleagues who were willing to tolerate me anyway and by just |
57 |
treating me much friendlier and more patiently than I did treat them, |
58 |
I've learned there are better ways to handle frustration and latent |
59 |
aggressions. |
60 |
|
61 |
> I have heard people say that our lack of being paid developers compounds |
62 |
> this, as we have people from all walks of life. |
63 |
|
64 |
The latter I definitely consider one of our strengths because we're *not* |
65 |
all from the isolated ebony towers of university. We're from all over the |
66 |
world and from all professions. |
67 |
|
68 |
> but I do know that paid developers tend to be older and |
69 |
> more professional. After all, if they constantly acted like a tool, |
70 |
> they'd be fired. |
71 |
|
72 |
Of course. |
73 |
|
74 |
> Developer Relations has gone through a few good spots intermixed with |
75 |
> lots of failures. |
76 |
|
77 |
Yes, I agree. Of course, both of our views are highly subjective and some |
78 |
others may, as subjectively, feel that it's exactly the other way round. |
79 |
|
80 |
> I have always felt that a properly-running distribution should have the |
81 |
> need for a group whose purpose is to resolve internal conflict. |
82 |
|
83 |
I'm guessing you meant to write "should NOT have"? |
84 |
|
85 |
> We will always need recruiters, but the existence of a group just |
86 |
> to make the 300 or so of us play nice together shows that our culture is |
87 |
> broken. |
88 |
|
89 |
No, I don't think so. The fact that we all come from different cultures, |
90 |
are aged from 15 or so up to 70 (? Neddy, correct me if I'm wrong. ;-) ) |
91 |
makes it impossible to avoid conflicts among ourselves. Thus, we'll |
92 |
always need some people to mediate. |
93 |
|
94 |
Granted, personally, I don't need DevRel. I just ignore those who annoy me |
95 |
or I'll let them know what I think about them directly without making a |
96 |
public fuss about it. We can't expect that from others, though. |
97 |
|
98 |
> > Do we really need an entire team for dealing with one former dev in |
99 |
> > case he goes too far? Or could we just agree to ignore him if he |
100 |
> > again behaves inappropriately (or what some of us *feel* might be |
101 |
> > inappropriate)? |
102 |
|
103 |
This was targetted at the proctors again, not DevRel. I should have made |
104 |
that clear, sorry. |
105 |
|
106 |
> > When I first read the CoC I had just read about the entire |
107 |
> > Ciaran-incident on the respective bugs, Forums, mailinglists, blogs |
108 |
> > and many other sources. CoC, while not bad in itself, seemed (and |
109 |
> > still seems) to me like a "Lex Ciaran" - a document with that what I |
110 |
> > had just read clearly in mind and targetted at preventing it. |
111 |
> The Code of Conduct was written with the hopes that its existence would |
112 |
> help to curb the flamewars |
113 |
|
114 |
Yes, I know. I was sceptical about that when I first heard of it and I |
115 |
still am. :) |
116 |
|
117 |
> The perception is all that really matters, as it is all that gets |
118 |
> propagated to the world. I think this is something that people seem |
119 |
> to forget. It doesn't matter what the real truth is for anything. |
120 |
> All that matters "to the world" is what they perceive. |
121 |
|
122 |
Exactly! That's the point: In an ideal world, the absolute truth would be |
123 |
all that mattered. We all know, though, that neither the world outside |
124 |
the virtual walls of our electronic communications media is perfect nor |
125 |
that our own little Gentoo world is perfect. |
126 |
|
127 |
Thus, we really have to think about how we (and others) perceive what |
128 |
we're doing. |
129 |
|
130 |
> > While preventing it is a good goal in itself, writing a CoC based on |
131 |
> > an actual case which has only recently occurred, usually leads to |
132 |
> > this result and damages the whatever good intentions were involved |
133 |
> > because other people will see the similarities as well. |
134 |
> The Code of Conduct wasn't written in response to a particular case. |
135 |
|
136 |
Yes, it was not intended to be but that's again a question of perception |
137 |
*and* one of the timing. Just look at the dates of both the incident in |
138 |
question and the time the CoC was written. |
139 |
|
140 |
Furthermore, lay both the DevRel bug and the CoC next to each other and |
141 |
compare the accusations and the CoC regulations with each other - even |
142 |
the ordering is pretty much the same. :-) |
143 |
|
144 |
Of course, the CoC was not intended as a Ciaran-response but it was |
145 |
(probably even unintentionally) written with it in mind and it shows. |
146 |
|
147 |
> The timing suggests that it was written against Ciaran. It wasn't. I |
148 |
> know this will sound a bit harsh, but if we really were trying to just |
149 |
> get rid of Ciaran, we would have just banned him and been done with it. |
150 |
|
151 |
Don't worry about sounding harsh and I'll do the same: You wouldn't have |
152 |
gotten rid of him. If you were able to get rid of him, he wouldn't be |
153 |
able to post to this mailinglist. |
154 |
|
155 |
Yesterday on IRC, I suggested banning Ciaran from here but, as I expected, |
156 |
that was met with enraged shouting about "censorship". |
157 |
|
158 |
If we're not even able to deal with someone who has proven to me even (and |
159 |
I wasn't convinced retiring him was right after reading all I've listed |
160 |
in my previous mail) that he's a troublemaker above anything else, we |
161 |
aren't able to deal with anyone as decided as him. |
162 |
|
163 |
> > More than that, it puts a strain on those who are entrusted with |
164 |
> > enforcing the CoC because they will try, with the best motives, to |
165 |
> > prevent anything like that happening again. And they will do it, as |
166 |
> > the proctors stated themselves, pro-actively. |
167 |
> No, re-actively. |
168 |
|
169 |
Agreed - they were talking about *pro*-actively themselves, though. :-) |
170 |
|
171 |
> I think they've failed. |
172 |
|
173 |
I agree. |
174 |
|
175 |
> voicing of their failure as a direct personal assault. It wasn't meant |
176 |
> that way, but I'm not going to apologize for my observations. I see no |
177 |
> point in apologizing for what *I* perceived, even if it does hurt a few |
178 |
> feelings. I just think people are being overly-sensitive. It's |
179 |
> Gentoo's curse. |
180 |
|
181 |
Absolutely! That's exactly my feeling, too, and the reason why I've voiced |
182 |
my hope that people would finally grow a thicker skin as I put it. |
183 |
|
184 |
> If Developer Relations were able to act fast, it would help immensely. |
185 |
|
186 |
Define a right to a "speedy decision" and make that 30 days at most. |
187 |
|
188 |
> > If, after both sides were investigated properly, the complaining |
189 |
> > party is found to be exaggerating or too easily offended, |
190 |
> > disciplinary action should be taken against it. Of course, this |
191 |
> > should be done light-handedly but it should give the complaining |
192 |
> > party some time to learn from their mistake. Maybe this is what's |
193 |
> > already intended - it's just that I haven't found any examples. :) |
194 |
> It is actually what was intended. The problem is that even the most |
195 |
> light-handed actions have been met with resignations, flames, people |
196 |
> being general assholes, and all kinds of other fun things that compound |
197 |
> the problems rather than resolve them. |
198 |
|
199 |
Tough luck. Make DevRel a body that people are being elected to for, e. g. |
200 |
one year, and let people resign over their decisions if they feel they |
201 |
have to. It already happened and at least one dev came back after some |
202 |
rest. |
203 |
|
204 |
You said it yourself: People are overly sensitive and DevRel must not hurt |
205 |
their feelings because of that? Sorry, that's not the way it works. |
206 |
|
207 |
> We are an open source project that is completely community-based. We |
208 |
> simply don't all think alike and can't expect that to ever change. |
209 |
|
210 |
No, of course not. But I've seen (and am a part of) much bigger projects |
211 |
survive for much longer (more than 20 years in one example) than Gentoo |
212 |
in spite of having basically the same problems we have. |
213 |
|
214 |
> We don't really have any sort of replacement for the proctors. |
215 |
|
216 |
And we don't need one. |
217 |
|
218 |
> original User Relations was supposed to do that job, |
219 |
|
220 |
I've never understood what that was about either but that's another |
221 |
story. :-) |
222 |
|
223 |
> I know I am planning on bringing up discussion on this at the next |
224 |
> Council meeting and we'll simply go from there. |
225 |
|
226 |
That would be on the 14th this month, right? |
227 |
|
228 |
Best regards, Wulf |