Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Daniel Robbins]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote:

>
> Nobody contacted us regarding his email and I was not even aware it was
> specifically targeting somebody.


I am going to make a couple of points and then drop this topic. And Luca, I
actually do expect that you will agree with all my points here. People in
senior positions in Gentoo are very aware of the rules and yet they violate
them. And yet they are very quick to use ComRel as a weapon against those
who are critical of them. People in senior positions in Gentoo *should know
the rules*! People in senior positions in Gentoo *should follow the rules*
and *be examples of the rules*. They should not be the ones taking
advantage of the rules. They should apply the rules to themselves and make
sure that they are sparkly-clean before enforcing them against others. The
CoC is primarily for those who are officially on the project, and then that
sets the standard for interaction with people who are not officially on the
project. But it's not intended to be a baseball bat that leaders of the
project use against the public.

Do you agree with me so far, if not my methods?

Suggesting that I need to follow CoC procedure to file complaints against
those who are leading the project is, well, sad. It may be the correct
approach, technically, but it is still a sad state of affairs. What I mean
is that it's sad that we are at this point, where these people can't keep
themselves personally accountable to the CoC they claim to uphold and
should embody themselves.


> You are willfully behaving in CoC-infringing ways on purpose and you
> stated that yourself.
>

Previously, yes. Now, no. I am attempting to follow the CoC.

Maybe what I think is needed at this point is some kind of rule as follows:
if you file a complaint with ComRel, you need to be able to claim that you
yourself are making a best effort to be an example of the CoC on lists,
IRC, etc. If ComRel did a bit of checking on this, it might be the
"equalizer" that prevents these rules from being one-sidedly enforced, and
prevent much of this "weaponizing" of the CoC.

Call this the "fairness" rule or the "anti-hypocrisy" rule, or the "don't
point fingers" rule. Something like this is very much needed. Right now,
there is a one-sided nature to the CoC enforcement that simply does not
work. It takes two sides to argue, and yet ComRel swoops in, makes a
determination regarding blame, and then one-sidedly enforces the CoC.
Really, both parties are to blame, to an extent, in all but the most
extreme cases.

Now, I am trying to abide by the CoC, be an example (I'm working on it) and
I have suggested what I think is a really good policy change which will
address the hypocrisy via procedural means, which means that I can hang up
my masked vigilante outfit and find other things to do. I do believe this
"fairness rule" is absolutely needed, as an alternative to kicking these
people from the project, which would be my preference and option of choice
as project founder and lead.

But as it now stands, I would say that having ComRel swoop in, make a
summary judgement of guilt, and implement punishment within the span of a
few minutes is essentially weaponization of the CoC and does nothing
whatsoever to bring civility, friendliness, and a positive development
environment to Gentoo. And it will also invite the Founder to return to
rant, hand wave, and post excessively. So, Luca, I ask you consider some
sort of "fairness" rule for the project regarding CoC enforcement, and
maybe become an advocate for this type of rule yourself and help it to be
implemented. Right now, under the current policies, watching the CoC
enforced to protect those who are themselves flagrant violators of it is
actually contributing to the inequity in the project and slowly but surely
undermining trust in the leadership structure, contributing to the rift
between Council and Foundation, and causing all sorts of other problems.

Best,

Daniel