1 |
These are all of the emails that were exchanged between myself and |
2 |
ciaranm. They're the raw form of the email, just pasted here. I do not |
3 |
agree with everything he put, as he obviously does not agree with |
4 |
everything in the proposal, however, he does bring up several points |
5 |
worthy of discussion, and I do not want to paraphrase it and |
6 |
unintentionally misinterpret what he meant. Also, do not take these as |
7 |
me or him attempting to flame or undermine devrel. These reponses were |
8 |
in reponse to the proposal and the problems the proposal intends to fix. |
9 |
|
10 |
--- |
11 |
|
12 |
First email (From me to ciaranm): |
13 |
|
14 |
Hey Ciaran, |
15 |
|
16 |
I wanted to write you to let you know some things that have happened |
17 |
since you left, and should help ease some of your concerns. Your |
18 |
observations were spot on, but I'd like to clear up some things. Devrel |
19 |
did admit there were problems in the process, and I have written a |
20 |
proposal which should be instituted within devrel on Tuesday, and |
21 |
clarifies the process, makes the process more transparent, and ensures |
22 |
that something like your situation happens again. |
23 |
|
24 |
It ensures that any evidence used in a decision to take action, and the |
25 |
details that determine that action are publicly viewable from the start. |
26 |
It also takes the power to make those decisions from one or two people |
27 |
and puts it into a group of people. It also includes some clarification |
28 |
of who devrel answers to, and makes it so devrel isnt immune to being |
29 |
changed or challenged. |
30 |
|
31 |
You can view this proposal at |
32 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/devrel-proposal.txt. I'd definitely like |
33 |
to hear your thoughts on it, whether you think its a good step forward |
34 |
(its not trying to solve every problem, just giving us a base from which |
35 |
to work forward), and what you would have changed. |
36 |
|
37 |
Mike Tindal |
38 |
|
39 |
--- |
40 |
|
41 |
First reply from ciaranm: |
42 |
|
43 |
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 18:54:07 -0500 Michael Tindal <urilith@g.o> |
44 |
wrote: |
45 |
| You can view this proposal at |
46 |
| http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/devrel-proposal.txt. I'd definitely |
47 |
| like to hear your thoughts on it, whether you think its a good step |
48 |
| forward (its not trying to solve every problem, just giving us a base |
49 |
| from which to work forward), and what you would have changed. |
50 |
|
51 |
Hm. It's a start, but there're things it doesn't address: |
52 |
|
53 |
* The outcome can still be decided by a very small number of devrel |
54 |
members. With the current situation, even various devrel members are |
55 |
calling their own system a "kangaroo court". I was told by no less than |
56 |
three different devrel members that dmwaters and jhuebel were dead set |
57 |
on suspending me and that nothing said at the meeting that they were |
58 |
planning would affect the outcome. With this proposal, a few highly |
59 |
biased members on the Judiciary project can still skew the outcome for |
60 |
personal vendettas. |
61 |
|
62 |
* The people who will not be able to act in separate capacities during |
63 |
the Investigation and Judiciary phases are the people who will claim |
64 |
that they can. Being involved in one phase must utterly preclude being |
65 |
involved in the other phase. |
66 |
|
67 |
* The proposed system is still heavily skewed in favour of anyone who |
68 |
happens to make a complaint. There is a huge 'Investigation' |
69 |
(prosecution) group. We've already seen that devrel will attempt to |
70 |
obfuscate any complaint by using pseudo-legal jargon (and getting it |
71 |
wrong, no less). There should be an equally huge defence group. |
72 |
|
73 |
* The proposed system is still heavily skewed towards a very small |
74 |
number of people having all the power. Being on the Judiciary board |
75 |
should utterly preclude also being a manager, foundation member or being |
76 |
in any other position which has influence upon how devrel operate. The |
77 |
final paragraph is insufficient. |
78 |
|
79 |
* The proposal does not address devrel's lack of perspective on what the |
80 |
real problems are. From experience, any complaint to devrel regarding |
81 |
technical aspects, tree breakage or the like is met with "We are not |
82 |
prepared to discuss this". However, devrel will be quite happy to |
83 |
investigate claims from people who put out intentionally false press |
84 |
releases when someone objects to us lying to our users, and they will |
85 |
quite happily investigate claims from the ricer crowd that were clearly |
86 |
just put together to cause trouble. |
87 |
|
88 |
* The proposal does nothing to discourage people from using devrel as a |
89 |
way of avoiding having sensible discussion. There is still no reason for |
90 |
someone who thinks that they have a complaint to ask for clarification. |
91 |
For example, a forums mod could still quite happily take some quote |
92 |
completely out of context, misunderstand it thanks to not speaking |
93 |
english english, use it as a complaint and not bother to find out what |
94 |
the actual issues involved are. Sure, it *might* be caught later on if |
95 |
people are actually ever told what the charges against them are, but |
96 |
that's a hell of a lot of mess. |
97 |
|
98 |
Incidentally, it may amuse you to find out that devrel still haven't |
99 |
told me what the actual charges against me were, and the only reason I |
100 |
know about them is because someone was kind enough to give me an HTML |
101 |
dump of a restricted access bug. What's worse is that of all the things |
102 |
that devrel *could* have legitimately gotten me for, not one of them is |
103 |
in that bug. |
104 |
|
105 |
Anyway, have fun. By all means use my observations thingie as a |
106 |
justification for your proposal if you haven't done so already. |
107 |
Something else that may help you -- I've received quite a few emails |
108 |
from people saying they're seriously considering resigning because of |
109 |
the behaviour from a few people in devrel. Might add some clout... |
110 |
|
111 |
*shrug* I think it's a nice start. I don't think it's enough, but |
112 |
equally I don't think anything that would really fix things would be |
113 |
accepted. |
114 |
|
115 |
Regards, |
116 |
-- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at firedrop.org.uk |
117 |
|
118 |
--- |
119 |
|
120 |
Second email from me to Ciaranm: |
121 |
|
122 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
123 |
|
124 |
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 18:54:07 -0500 Michael Tindal <urilith@g.o> |
125 |
>> wrote: |
126 |
>> | You can view this proposal at |
127 |
>> | http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/devrel-proposal.txt. I'd definitely |
128 |
>> | like to hear your thoughts on it, whether you think its a good step |
129 |
>> | forward (its not trying to solve every problem, just giving us a base |
130 |
>> | from which to work forward), and what you would have changed. |
131 |
>> |
132 |
>> Hm. It's a start, but there're things it doesn't address: |
133 |
>> |
134 |
>> * The outcome can still be decided by a very small number of devrel |
135 |
>> members. With the current situation, even various devrel members are |
136 |
>> calling their own system a "kangaroo court". I was told by no less than |
137 |
>> three different devrel members that dmwaters and jhuebel were dead set |
138 |
>> on suspending me and that nothing said at the meeting that they were |
139 |
>> planning would affect the outcome. With this proposal, a few highly |
140 |
>> biased members on the Judiciary project can still skew the outcome for |
141 |
>> personal vendettas. |
142 |
|
143 |
|
144 |
|
145 |
Thanks for your quick reply. I will definitely reword some of this |
146 |
then, since the entire proposal was brought about by my utter disgust in |
147 |
how they treated your situation. |
148 |
|
149 |
The proposal isn't supposed to be a means by which to solve all |
150 |
problems, I would expect that to take more time, however it does attempt |
151 |
to address several issues that exist within devrel at this time. Under |
152 |
this proposal, any evidence used to reach a decision (which was not |
153 |
presented to you, for example) must be available to the public at the |
154 |
time that decision is reached. If for some reason the members are |
155 |
biased, the evidence available will point to that, and the decision |
156 |
overturned. Having too many people sit on the panel just increases the |
157 |
chances for bias. |
158 |
|
159 |
|
160 |
>> * The people who will not be able to act in separate capacities during |
161 |
>> the Investigation and Judiciary phases are the people who will claim |
162 |
>> that they can. Being involved in one phase must utterly preclude being |
163 |
>> involved in the other phase. |
164 |
|
165 |
|
166 |
I will add that clarification then. I didn't get enough comments from |
167 |
-core to justify changing the wording, but since the proposal was for |
168 |
your treatment, I value your opinion above others at this point. |
169 |
|
170 |
|
171 |
>> * The proposed system is still heavily skewed in favour of anyone who |
172 |
>> happens to make a complaint. There is a huge 'Investigation' |
173 |
>> (prosecution) group. We've already seen that devrel will attempt to |
174 |
>> obfuscate any complaint by using pseudo-legal jargon (and getting it |
175 |
>> wrong, no less). There should be an equally huge defence group. |
176 |
|
177 |
|
178 |
Hmm, I do not believe I limited the size of the defense group. The |
179 |
system within the investigative subgroup still favors complaintants, I |
180 |
agree, however, the requirement of being publicly available should keep |
181 |
the judicial subgroup from favoring any party. I will however add |
182 |
specific wording to the effect that a defendant may have any number of |
183 |
peers dispute evidence or claims in their defense. Would this be |
184 |
sufficient to avoid bias at the judicial level? |
185 |
|
186 |
|
187 |
>> * The proposed system is still heavily skewed towards a very small |
188 |
>> number of people having all the power. Being on the Judiciary board |
189 |
>> should utterly preclude also being a manager, foundation member or being |
190 |
>> in any other position which has influence upon how devrel operate. The |
191 |
>> final paragraph is insufficient. |
192 |
|
193 |
|
194 |
I will add wording to that effect then. Like I mentioned previously, I |
195 |
did not receive strong enough opinions. |
196 |
|
197 |
|
198 |
>> * The proposal does not address devrel's lack of perspective on what the |
199 |
>> real problems are. From experience, any complaint to devrel regarding |
200 |
>> technical aspects, tree breakage or the like is met with "We are not |
201 |
>> prepared to discuss this". However, devrel will be quite happy to |
202 |
>> investigate claims from people who put out intentionally false press |
203 |
>> releases when someone objects to us lying to our users, and they will |
204 |
>> quite happily investigate claims from the ricer crowd that were clearly |
205 |
>> just put together to cause trouble. |
206 |
|
207 |
|
208 |
Unfortunately that is beyond the scope of this proposal. If you would |
209 |
like, I can write up another proposal to discuss with devrel that would |
210 |
add specific policies dicussing the differences between these |
211 |
complaints. This proposal is just trying to open the process up so |
212 |
someone isnt unjustly suspended like you were. |
213 |
|
214 |
|
215 |
>> * The proposal does nothing to discourage people from using devrel as a |
216 |
>> way of avoiding having sensible discussion. There is still no reason for |
217 |
>> someone who thinks that they have a complaint to ask for clarification. |
218 |
>> For example, a forums mod could still quite happily take some quote |
219 |
>> completely out of context, misunderstand it thanks to not speaking |
220 |
>> english english, use it as a complaint and not bother to find out what |
221 |
>> the actual issues involved are. Sure, it *might* be caught later on if |
222 |
>> people are actually ever told what the charges against them are, but |
223 |
>> that's a hell of a lot of mess. |
224 |
|
225 |
|
226 |
Under this proposal people must be told what the charges are, or no |
227 |
decision can be brought against them. If you would like, I can add |
228 |
specific wording to say that evidence must include the complete context |
229 |
of the quote (perhaps the whole page, relevant posts, etc), or the |
230 |
evidence cannot be used (much like the proposal states private evidence |
231 |
cannot be used). |
232 |
|
233 |
|
234 |
>> Incidentally, it may amuse you to find out that devrel still haven't |
235 |
>> told me what the actual charges against me were, and the only reason I |
236 |
>> know about them is because someone was kind enough to give me an HTML |
237 |
>> dump of a restricted access bug. What's worse is that of all the things |
238 |
>> that devrel *could* have legitimately gotten me for, not one of them is |
239 |
>> in that bug. |
240 |
|
241 |
|
242 |
It does not amuse me, since that was the entire reason I wrote this |
243 |
proposal. This proposal requires charges to be publicly documented. |
244 |
See http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/warning-suspension-draft.txt for some |
245 |
drafts of the forms. In your case, your charges would have been in the |
246 |
first URL, the evidence in the second. And I agree the bug is bullshit. |
247 |
As do many people. It might also make you feel better to know |
248 |
g2boojum agrees the bug is insufficient. You might wish to appeal the |
249 |
decision following Tuesday's meeting, stating that there is not enough |
250 |
publicly accessible evidence to justify your suspension. There's quite |
251 |
a few people in the project who would agree with me (myself included). |
252 |
|
253 |
|
254 |
>> Anyway, have fun. By all means use my observations thingie as a |
255 |
>> justification for your proposal if you haven't done so already. |
256 |
>> Something else that may help you -- I've received quite a few emails |
257 |
>> from people saying they're seriously considering resigning because of |
258 |
>> the behaviour from a few people in devrel. Might add some clout... |
259 |
>> |
260 |
>> *shrug* I think it's a nice start. I don't think it's enough, but |
261 |
>> equally I don't think anything that would really fix things would be |
262 |
>> accepted. |
263 |
|
264 |
|
265 |
I don't think its enough, either, incidentally. However, my main |
266 |
concern was trying to get something in to make it more transparent, and |
267 |
hopefully convince you to come back, either when you appeal or when your |
268 |
60 days is up. Theres many people in the project who miss your |
269 |
technical knowledge and the things you have done. If theres anything |
270 |
else you would like me to bring up to devrel, I would be more than happy |
271 |
to. Also, would you mind if I shared these three emails with devrel to |
272 |
show that you do indeed have legitimate, reponsible claims? It would |
273 |
definitely provide proof that you're not just trying to turn the issues |
274 |
away from yourself. |
275 |
|
276 |
Thanks, |
277 |
|
278 |
Mike Tindal |
279 |
|
280 |
--- |
281 |
|
282 |
Second reply from ciaranm: |
283 |
|
284 |
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:40:00 -0500 Michael Tindal <urilith@g.o> |
285 |
wrote: |
286 |
| The proposal isn't supposed to be a means by which to solve all |
287 |
| problems, I would expect that to take more time, however it does |
288 |
| attempt to address several issues that exist within devrel at this |
289 |
| time. Under this proposal, any evidence used to reach a decision |
290 |
| (which was not presented to you, for example) must be available to the |
291 |
| public at the time that decision is reached. If for some reason the |
292 |
| members are biased, the evidence available will point to that, and the |
293 |
| decision overturned. Having too many people sit on the panel just |
294 |
| increases the chances for bias. |
295 |
|
296 |
Problem is, this still leaves judgement in the hands of a very small |
297 |
number of people. If these were people like g2boojum or fmccor, who |
298 |
really do seem to be capable of acting without bias, it wouldn't be a |
299 |
problem. On the other hand, give it to the current crowd and we're back |
300 |
at the kangaroo court. At the very least, the committee would need to |
301 |
include people from a variety of roles -- ensure that there are some |
302 |
real 'tree' people in there as well as the current PR and relations |
303 |
shower. |
304 |
|
305 |
Whilst we're at it, there's another related issue which I'm probably |
306 |
not going to explain very clearly. |
307 |
|
308 |
We're dealing with a bunch of developers who, by and large, use words to |
309 |
mean exactly what they're intended to mean. Equally, we've already seen |
310 |
that devrel love incorrectly using various pseudo-legal terms because |
311 |
they think that it tries to add weight to their arguments -- the |
312 |
warning I was sent was very much a Humpty Dumpty ("When I use a word, it |
313 |
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.") use of |
314 |
English. So if, say, someone is accused of "slander", chances are |
315 |
they'll respond to the allegation of slander, and not to the allegation |
316 |
of "not being sufficiently tactful when making truthful statements", |
317 |
which is what devrel actually mean. |
318 |
|
319 |
If the judiciary committee happens to consist of (as it probably will) |
320 |
the types who are currently highly placed within devrel, they'll |
321 |
interpret the incorrect accusations as what they were trying to say, not |
322 |
what they actually meant. This is an immediate and extremely large bias |
323 |
against the accused, who will be busy trying to defend himself against |
324 |
what he was actually accused of. |
325 |
|
326 |
There are ways around this. I'd suggest requiring that all warnings are |
327 |
given in plain, straight forward english and that they must state what |
328 |
is meant. |
329 |
|
330 |
| > * The proposed system is still heavily skewed in favour of anyone |
331 |
| > who happens to make a complaint. There is a huge 'Investigation' |
332 |
| > (prosecution) group. We've already seen that devrel will attempt to |
333 |
| > obfuscate any complaint by using pseudo-legal jargon (and getting it |
334 |
| > wrong, no less). There should be an equally huge defence group. |
335 |
| |
336 |
| Hmm, I do not believe I limited the size of the defense group. The |
337 |
| system within the investigative subgroup still favors complaintants, I |
338 |
| agree, however, the requirement of being publicly available should |
339 |
| keep the judicial subgroup from favoring any party. I will however |
340 |
| add specific wording to the effect that a defendant may have any |
341 |
| number of peers dispute evidence or claims in their defense. Would |
342 |
| this be sufficient to avoid bias at the judicial level? |
343 |
|
344 |
I'd rather see something along the lines of a dedicated defence group, |
345 |
*on top of* the extra peers. It's unreasonable to expect some people to |
346 |
be able to compete fairly with the hard-core witch hunters. |
347 |
|
348 |
| > * The proposal does not address devrel's lack of perspective on what |
349 |
| > the real problems are. From experience, any complaint to devrel |
350 |
| > regarding technical aspects, tree breakage or the like is met with |
351 |
| > "We are not prepared to discuss this". However, devrel will be quite |
352 |
| > happy to investigate claims from people who put out intentionally |
353 |
| > false press releases when someone objects to us lying to our users, |
354 |
| > and they will quite happily investigate claims from the ricer crowd |
355 |
| > that were clearly just put together to cause trouble. |
356 |
| |
357 |
| Unfortunately that is beyond the scope of this proposal. If you would |
358 |
| like, I can write up another proposal to discuss with devrel that |
359 |
| would add specific policies dicussing the differences between these |
360 |
| complaints. This proposal is just trying to open the process up so |
361 |
| someone isnt unjustly suspended like you were. |
362 |
|
363 |
I'm not sure that separating it is a good idea. Devrel's current "stuff |
364 |
we can enforce" rules are limited to the self-written never agreed upon |
365 |
"Etiquette Policy". Trying to get any reasonable sense of justice out of |
366 |
this would be a lot easier if the scope of devrel's investigations were |
367 |
properly set out. Currently devrel's response to any technical |
368 |
complaints is "we are not prepared to discuss this" or "isn't that QA's |
369 |
job, not ours?". |
370 |
|
371 |
| > * The proposal does nothing to discourage people from using devrel |
372 |
| > as a way of avoiding having sensible discussion. There is still no |
373 |
| > reason for someone who thinks that they have a complaint to ask for |
374 |
| > clarification. For example, a forums mod could still quite happily |
375 |
| > take some quote completely out of context, misunderstand it thanks |
376 |
| > to not speaking english english, use it as a complaint and not |
377 |
| > bother to find out what the actual issues involved are. Sure, it |
378 |
| > *might* be caught later on if people are actually ever told what the |
379 |
| > charges against them are, but that's a hell of a lot of mess. |
380 |
| |
381 |
| Under this proposal people must be told what the charges are, or no |
382 |
| decision can be brought against them. If you would like, I can add |
383 |
| specific wording to say that evidence must include the complete |
384 |
| context of the quote (perhaps the whole page, relevant posts, etc), or |
385 |
| the evidence cannot be used (much like the proposal states private |
386 |
| evidence cannot be used). |
387 |
|
388 |
Guess I didn't explain that point too well. Any issues should be |
389 |
discussed with the relevant parties before they get to the devrel stage. |
390 |
At least one of the allegations on the bug I'm not supposed to have seen |
391 |
is a result of someone not understanding what I was actually saying. |
392 |
|
393 |
| It does not amuse me, since that was the entire reason I wrote this |
394 |
| proposal. This proposal requires charges to be publicly documented. |
395 |
| See http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/warning-suspension-draft.txt for |
396 |
| some drafts of the forms. In your case, your charges would have been |
397 |
| in the first URL, the evidence in the second. And I agree the bug is |
398 |
| bullshit. |
399 |
|
400 |
Bleh. That reads like "we are going to open a can of devrel-style |
401 |
whoopass on you", not "there is an issue which we would like to have |
402 |
resolved sanely". |
403 |
|
404 |
| As do many people. It might also make you feel better to know |
405 |
| g2boojum agrees the bug is insufficient. You might wish to appeal the |
406 |
| decision following Tuesday's meeting, stating that there is not enough |
407 |
| publicly accessible evidence to justify your suspension. There's |
408 |
| quite a few people in the project who would agree with me (myself |
409 |
| included). |
410 |
|
411 |
Bleh, I've had enough of arguing with devrel. Their "no discussion" |
412 |
policy precludes any reasonable dialogue. There're far less futile |
413 |
things upon which I could waste my time. |
414 |
|
415 |
| > Anyway, have fun. By all means use my observations thingie as a |
416 |
| > justification for your proposal if you haven't done so already. |
417 |
| > Something else that may help you -- I've received quite a few emails |
418 |
| > from people saying they're seriously considering resigning because |
419 |
| > of the behaviour from a few people in devrel. Might add some |
420 |
| > clout... |
421 |
| > |
422 |
| > *shrug* I think it's a nice start. I don't think it's enough, but |
423 |
| > equally I don't think anything that would really fix things would be |
424 |
| > accepted. |
425 |
| |
426 |
| I don't think its enough, either, incidentally. However, my main |
427 |
| concern was trying to get something in to make it more transparent, |
428 |
| and hopefully convince you to come back, either when you appeal or |
429 |
| when your 60 days is up. |
430 |
|
431 |
If me coming back is going to involve me having to watch out for |
432 |
vindictive trouble-makers, I don't see any point. We all know fine well |
433 |
that there're some people out there who will use any excuse to try to |
434 |
get me kicked off again. |
435 |
|
436 |
| Theres many people in the project who miss |
437 |
| your technical knowledge and the things you have done. |
438 |
|
439 |
What, my "net negative contribution" to Gentoo? |
440 |
|
441 |
| If theres anything else you would like me to bring up to devrel, I |
442 |
| would be more than happy to. |
443 |
|
444 |
Heh, I think they already know my thoughts. Or at least, they know where |
445 |
to find them should they ever decide they want to read what I actually |
446 |
wrote. |
447 |
|
448 |
| Also, would you mind if I shared these three emails with devrel to |
449 |
| show that you do indeed have legitimate, reponsible claims? It would |
450 |
| definitely provide proof that you're not just trying to turn the |
451 |
| issues away from yourself. |
452 |
|
453 |
Feel free. Heck, print them out and nail them to a church door if you |
454 |
think it'll make a difference. |
455 |
|
456 |
-- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at firedrop.org.uk |
457 |
|
458 |
-------------- |
459 |
|
460 |
Since my internet access went out early Monday afternoon, that was the |
461 |
last correspondence I had with him. Any opinions expressed here by me |
462 |
are my personal opinions based on the evidence presented in the bug and |
463 |
elsewhere, and do not reflect upon my opinions of devrel or devrel's |
464 |
members. That said, I would appreciate your comments and suggestions so |
465 |
I can update the proposal and respond to Ciaran accordingly. |
466 |
|
467 |
Mike Tindal |