| 1 |
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:07 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 13/04/18 22:57, Rich Freeman wrote [excerpted]: |
| 3 |
>> I find it ironic that you're suggesting that the folks who disagree |
| 4 |
>> with you leave, considering that this whole debate was started by a |
| 5 |
>> bunch of people who basically felt that nobody should really be kicked |
| 6 |
>> out for anything. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> The problem stems from the fact that there is (perceived to be) a |
| 9 |
> problem with the wrong kinds of people *being* ejected or disciplined, |
| 10 |
> whereas some people who *should* be ejected or disciplined, are not. And |
| 11 |
> obviously so. There is no even-handed or transparent application of |
| 12 |
> whatever "rules" are being applied, and this is seen to be unjust and |
| 13 |
> unacceptable ... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Obviously I don't want to rehash this whole debate, but applying the |
| 17 |
rules in a transparent way seems to be impossible without creating |
| 18 |
legal risks. I've yet to hear anything to the contrary from the |
| 19 |
Trustees/etc. So, it comes down to either trusting people to do this |
| 20 |
well, or not doing it at all. I'm certainly supportive of calls to |
| 21 |
try to improve transparency where this is possible, such as with |
| 22 |
anonymized stats published by comrel. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
FWIW I've actually heard complaints at all levels within Gentoo about |
| 25 |
double standards (coming from the top on down). It is probably fair |
| 26 |
to say that bad deeds can be offset by good deeds to a significant |
| 27 |
degree around here, even if those deeds are of a different nature. |
| 28 |
So, somebody with a strong negative technical/non-technical/social |
| 29 |
contribution could be tolerated if they have a correspondingly strong |
| 30 |
positive social/non-technical/technical contribution. I've seen lots |
| 31 |
of debate on both sides as to whether that is good or bad, but there |
| 32 |
are certainly consequences for being too liberal with booting people |
| 33 |
out, or keeping them around. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I haven't heard many appeals during my time on the Council, but from |
| 36 |
the ones I have seen there were usually very good reasons for those |
| 37 |
who were asked to leave, and those same people were generally not very |
| 38 |
honest with the community about the reasons they were given for being |
| 39 |
booted. One form of transparency I have suggested is that when |
| 40 |
disciplinary actions are given the person being disciplined should be |
| 41 |
given an explanation for why the action is being taken, and that at |
| 42 |
their option that explanation would be made public verbatim. I've |
| 43 |
seen Debian do this and I thought it was a good way to balance |
| 44 |
privacy/transparency/risk. The person being disciplined can at their |
| 45 |
option keep the whole matter quiet, or they can have it publicized in |
| 46 |
an official way. However, if they decide to publish their own account |
| 47 |
of events while denying Gentoo permission to publish its side, then |
| 48 |
those listening will probably be skeptical that they're getting the |
| 49 |
full story. Since Gentoo would not make any public statements without |
| 50 |
permission from the person impacted there would be little risk of |
| 51 |
legal repercussions. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
Rich |
Archives