Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Shutting down the Off the Wall

[desultory]

On 12/05/20 05:36, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2020, desultory  wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/20 07:45, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> Last time I checked, the forums (including OTW) were open for anyone
>>> to register, which makes them public communication media. So the Code
>>> of Conduct applies.
>
>> Aside form limited circumstances when registration is restricted, for
>> instance due to flooding, they are open to register. However, under
>> the current, council mandated configuration Off the Wall is not
>> publicly readable without an account, unlike the mailing lists aside
>> from core.
>
> So basically you say that OTW isn't a public forum, so the CoC doesn't
> apply to it and nothing needs to change?
>
They are in point of fact less public than the lists, and your
statements indicate that you consider the degree to which a medium is
public to determine the degree to which a medium is subject to the CoC.
Completely aside from the fact that moderation is deliberately lax in
Off the Wall and moderation is further deliberately reliant upon
problems being properly reported and that both have been true since well
before the CoC was drafted.

> I had really hoped that the moderators team would acknowledge that the
> current state of affairs with OTW is unacceptable, and come up with some
> plan of their own how to improve things.
>
I had hoped that council would acknowledge when it was working outside
of its competence and recognize that those doing the work would
understand that work better than those merely making a show of offense
that something that they make little, if any, use of contains a section
which they do not read which contains things which they would not elect
to read.

You, and other council members, deem the current state of Off the Wall
"unacceptable", while carefully avoiding how it is so beyond the mere
fact that it contains material which is not topical to technical support
of Gentoo or otherwise necessarily directly associated with Gentoo; all
while brushing off that other mediums contain such content without
having a suitable place (or indeed mechanism) to separate it from that
which is directly related to Gentoo. Instead, we are apparently to
engage in a purity spiral, but only on the forums because there are
mechanisms to enforce one there, regardless of the damage that would
result (if you need that explained, read up on what a purity spiral is
before attempting to claim that they are anything other than
destructive). As I pointed out in the discussion on core, there is no
evidently feasible change which would quell all complaints, and there
has been no mention of some acceptable threshold of complaints which
would satisfy the council (though given the origin of this farce, it can
be inferred to be zero). Yet you claim to expect a proposal to come
forth to satisfy concerns which, as so far stated, are fairly summarized
as "I don't use it. I am willfully ignorant of it. I don't like it. Make
it go away."

> If neither of these two things are going to happen, then it won't be
> difficult to predict that the Council will close down OTW sooner or
> later.
>
Considering that the previous council vote explicitly called for
discussion on the lists, which never took place, and that this latest
farce is directly due to the manner in which the council has taken
action, ongoing gross incompetence on the part of the council is hardly
unexpected.

The only council member to clearly state their preference to not close
Off the Wall stated that they wanted the CoC enforced those violating it
to be banned, and even they only got half way there: such cases need to
be reported to forum moderators, not claimed by council to declare its
collective indigence at while it spends a month complaining that nothing
is being done because it claimed the role while avoiding the actions
which that role implies. Instead, we have this farce.

>> How, exactly? The council acts as the final level of appeal (short of
>> literally suing for redress over a CoC enforcement action) yet
>> multiple council members have been posting in a manner which is
>> directly counter to the CoC. If posting in a manner directly counter
>> to the CoC is acceptable behavior to those ultimately tasked with
>> enforcing it, then the CoC is moot at best. If the CoC is moot then
>> there is no functioning policy to enforce. If there is no functioning
>> policy, there is no policy to breach. As such, either the council as a
>> whole and its members individually need to start treating the CoC as a
>> functioning and enforceable policy, not least by abiding by it, or the
>> council as a whole and its members individually need to admit that it
>> is indeed as it has been treated by them: a defunct policy.
>
> Such unproven allegations aren't helpful. If I should have violated the
> CoC in any ML posting, then please point out that concrete posting or
> report me to ComRel.
>
This entire farce is unhelpful, yet it continues to go on. Further,
there is no concept of "proven allegation" in regard to the CoC, even in
cases where a developer would be completely expelled from the project
there is no reference to proving any "allegations". However, critically
reading the CoC and the discussions in question should suffice to
demonstrate repeated conflict between the two.

As for you specifically, your public posts have been less overt than
certain of your posts on core or those of other council members both on
core and in public, though distinct elements remain present.

As for making a ComRel complaint they, like proctors, have openly stated
that they prefer inaction regardless of whether a formal complaint is
made (though at least ComRel specified that they they did so in less
overt cases, even if their actions since have not exactly carried
through on that). Between that declaration on their part and the fact
that I, ComRel, and the council are all aware that any appeals would go
to the council, it hardly seems worth the waste of time.

> Ulrich
>