| 1 |
On 16/04/2018 01:50, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Nobody contacted us regarding his email and I was not even aware |
| 7 |
>> it was specifically targeting somebody. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I am going to make a couple of points and then drop this topic. And |
| 11 |
> Luca, I actually do expect that you will agree with all my points |
| 12 |
> here. People in senior positions in Gentoo are very aware of the |
| 13 |
> rules and yet they violate them. And yet they are very quick to use |
| 14 |
> ComRel as a weapon against those who are critical of them. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
No, it did not happen and is not happening now. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> People in senior positions in Gentoo *should know the rules*! People |
| 19 |
> in senior positions in Gentoo *should follow the rules* and *be |
| 20 |
> examples of the rules*. They should not be the ones taking advantage |
| 21 |
> of the rules. They should apply the rules to themselves and make |
| 22 |
> sure that they are sparkly-clean before enforcing them against |
| 23 |
> others. The CoC is primarily for those who are officially on the |
| 24 |
> project, and then that sets the standard for interaction with people |
| 25 |
> who are not officially on the project. But it's not intended to be a |
| 26 |
> baseball bat that leaders of the project use against the public. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Do you agree with me so far, if not my methods? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Your statements are misguided. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
The CoC is not a weapon since the way it is written you have to first |
| 33 |
make an effort to make the infringing party AWARE that you feel that |
| 34 |
there is a breach, then contact comrel if the party ignores you, then we |
| 35 |
try to have the parties come to an understanding if the violation is not |
| 36 |
blatant. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Only after that we have to take some more direct action. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Your blatant small breaches had me warn you once as per |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel#Disciplinary_Actions_for_direct_CoC_violations |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> Suggesting that I need to follow CoC procedure to file complaints |
| 45 |
> against those who are leading the project is, well, sad. It may be |
| 46 |
> the correct approach, technically, but it is still a sad state of |
| 47 |
> affairs. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
You should really read that wiki page, it is all written there... |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
>> You are willfully behaving in CoC-infringing ways on purpose and |
| 52 |
>> you stated that yourself. |
| 53 |
>> |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> Previously, yes. Now, no. I am attempting to follow the CoC. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
I'm glad you are now. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> Maybe what I think is needed at this point is some kind of rule as |
| 60 |
> follows: if you file a complaint with ComRel, you need to be able to |
| 61 |
> claim that you yourself are making a best effort to be an example of |
| 62 |
> the CoC on lists, IRC, etc. If ComRel did a bit of checking on this, |
| 63 |
> it might be the "equalizer" that prevents these rules from being |
| 64 |
> one-sidedly enforced, and prevent much of this "weaponizing" of the |
| 65 |
> CoC. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
You base assumption are pretty wrong and this and the following |
| 68 |
statements are quite unfair. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Our code of conduct requires involved parties to give at least a try to |
| 71 |
get along. Comrel main task is to facilitate this. |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
Only if we have serious breaches (e.g. something that could be even |
| 74 |
actionable by law enforcers) or repeated breaches (or ignoring our |
| 75 |
warnings) we have to act in a way that is more public. |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
Even in that case, because of the privacy regulations AND the fact |
| 78 |
reporters would be open to retaliation if known, the details available |
| 79 |
to the public are scarce. |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
lu |
Archives