Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>
To: Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
Cc: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: CoC enforcement proposal
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:59:52
Message-Id: 20071112175933.GG19458@supernova
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Re: CoC enforcement proposal by Steve Long
On 08:38 Mon 12 Nov     , Steve Long wrote:
> I feel less comfortable with the following: > 1) "a strong lead to ensure the team's actions fit the council's CoC > interpretation." > > While I agree the team needs to act consistently, and in a united manner (ie > speak with one voice, as it were) I do not think placing emphasis on one > individual is a wise move. It places greater onus on that person, and often > leads to more stress followed by burnout, with all the attendant problems > which are much more difficult precisely because the individual has greater > authority.
What I'm reading here is that a leader needs to lead, with its attendant responsibilities. Having a leader creates a single source of responsibility and accountability. That way, you don't have to disband the whole team if you decide to take action against it (sound familiar?). A single person is putting his or her reputation on the line instead of getting caught up in groupthink and avoiding accountability. Committees are a fantastic way to avoid blaming anyone for anything. Being impartial, in my opinion, is a pipe dream. Gentoo isn't a large enough community for people to not know each other. The only way I can think of to deal with that is to admit your previous experiences and thoughts so others can take them into consideration.
> 2) "It is expected that membership on this team will be highly selective and > not all who wish to join will make the cut. The team will be limited to > 3 people for a probationary period so we don't get dumped in the deep > end right away, and it will never have more than 5 people." > > I don't think it should really be a job given to people who want to do it > for the sake of it. The last team appeared to be the right set, based on > their experience, and seemed to take the job because it needed to be done, > not because it was seen as some sort of elite team. Maybe I'm being a bit > sensitive to the nuance of the language, but I think the tone matters.
In a volunteer community, people only get really committed to things they want to do. How do you propose to change that?
> The numbers others have commented on; I concur that it seems a bit limited > (in the longer-term) to cover the timezones and ensure timely coverage. > Expanding on that a bit, I think it would be good to stipulate some sort of > cross-cultural mix: a team made up of purely North Americans or Anglophones > is not going to be as attuned to the sensitivities of the diverse user base > as is needed, imo.
I agree that the time zone coverage could be a bit limited with this number of people. One reason for this is that we don't need to catch 100% of the possible things that could happen, and we don't need to stare at IRC windows or mailing lists all day lonng. You're right, Gentoo's members come from all over the world. That doesn't mean that Gentoo itself cannot have a single culture, though, wherever we came from originally.
> Wernfried Haas wrote: > > This is quite similar to how warnings andbans are done on the forums, > > we always document who warned/banned whom and for what reason and it > > has worked quite well so far there. > > ++ to documentation, and the points others raised about an appeals > mechanism. Amne also mentioned discussion with the "offender" before > sanctions are imposed. While I agree that you don't want to get into an > argument with people, I think you're going to have to accept that people > *will* argue about it (even more so given that it's techies) and your team > needs to be ready to justify their decisions. I have no issue with a mute > being imposed first (for a few hours) and the discussion taking place at > that point. But there does need to be that discussion, and the earlier the > better, so that people are brought into line with community expectations at > an early stage, when the conflict is less.
I agree that the team could certainly make its rationale available (logs, interpretations of the CoC) upon request by someone it took action against. I don't agree with discussions or arguments with that person, because they will drag the team down. Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-project@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
[gentoo-project] Re: Re: CoC enforcement proposal Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>