Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote:
>
> Well, let's consider the order of events here:
> ...
> This looks awfully clear to me.
>...
> I'm not focused on the ban, or whether it was deserved.

That's exactly what you've done here.  You've connected a bunch of
dots that you can see, and don't consider that there may be dots that
you don't see.

>>
>> And the only item recently submitted that is relevant is the item for
>> the splitting of the mailing list, and the Council hasn't even met to
>> make any decisions one way or another.  You're exasperated over
>> something the Council hasn't even done.
>
> Again, the Council approves most things that come down the line,
> especially if it's from mgorny.
>

You've read this situation fairly poorly, IMO.

Certainly many of mgorny's proposals have been approved by the council
over the last few years, but go back and review them.  They're mostly
technical proposals, and I think you would agree that his proposals
tend to be technically strong.  I realize that isn't what you're
arguing, but you can't extrapolate from a history of approving
technical proposals to an assumption that the Council would approve
literally any controversial social proposal he makes.

I have had no access to any internal/private deliberations any members
of the council have had over this issue, and the same access as you to
any public statements they have made over the last few weeks.  I would
estimate the likely possible outcomes and their probabilities as:

0% - Splitting of gentoo-dev into two lists as proposed.
20% - no resolutions accepted this meeting
10% - A statement encouraging the moderation of the gentoo-dev list
once infra can enable this.
50% - A general statement indicating that so far there hasn't actually
been much significant ban evasion going on, and that for the time
being asking community members to respect any bans should continue.
Community members should try to abide by the comrel process, and not
take matters into their own hands by participating in flame wars.
Gentoo-dev should be focused on technical matters, non-technical
matters ought to go to gentoo-project, and comrel is encouraged to
remind individuals of when they're off-topic even if well-intentioned.
20% - No formal proposal, but an intention communicated to revive
something like the proctors project to allow comrel to focus on bigger
issues (harassment, ongoing patterns, etc).  The proctors would be
much more proactive in reaching out to community members who are
abusing lists/irc/etc, and likely empowered to hand out temporary
bans/etc of fairly short duration, enforced either voluntarily or
using technical means (though presumably ban evasion would be viewed
as a more serious offense).

Knowing most of the council members reasonably well I think it is
pretty unlikely that anything drastic will be done, and a few have
already gone on the record publicly as not being in favor of splitting
the list.

>
> You told me a few paragraphs ago that it wouldn't be worth it anyway,
> and now you're telling me to run for the Council? Which is it?

Both, these statements are not contradictory.

If you feel that strongly that the Council is out of line you should
run.  Then you will be able to see firsthand how the rest of the
community feels about your approach.  I could be wrong but I think
you'd be soundly defeated assuming most of the incumbents haven't left
by then.

From the standpoint of getting your way it wouldn't be worth it.  From
the standpoint of giving everybody a chance to vote on your opinions
it would be.  IMO there really isn't anything you can do to get your
way, because it is opposed by most of the community, albeit silently.

That said, I do have to acknowledge that my email was indirect.  That
tends to be my style - I usually try to leave conclusions unsaid.  On
a list whose participants vary greatly in language skills, technical
proficiency, general intelligence, value/culture, etc perhaps it
really isn't the best way to communicate.  (There I go again being
indirect...)  I need to work on that...

-- 
Rich