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
1 On 08:38 Mon 12 Nov , Steve Long wrote:
2 > I feel less comfortable with the following:
3 > 1) "a strong lead to ensure the team's actions fit the council's CoC
4 > interpretation."
5 >
6 > While I agree the team needs to act consistently, and in a united manner (ie
7 > speak with one voice, as it were) I do not think placing emphasis on one
8 > individual is a wise move. It places greater onus on that person, and often
9 > leads to more stress followed by burnout, with all the attendant problems
10 > which are much more difficult precisely because the individual has greater
11 > authority.
12
13 What I'm reading here is that a leader needs to lead, with its attendant
14 responsibilities. Having a leader creates a single source of
15 responsibility and accountability. That way, you don't have to disband
16 the whole team if you decide to take action against it (sound
17 familiar?). A single person is putting his or her reputation on the line
18 instead of getting caught up in groupthink and avoiding accountability.
19 Committees are a fantastic way to avoid blaming anyone for anything.
20
21 Being impartial, in my opinion, is a pipe dream. Gentoo isn't a large
22 enough community for people to not know each other. The only way I can
23 think of to deal with that is to admit your previous experiences and
24 thoughts so others can take them into consideration.
25
26 > 2) "It is expected that membership on this team will be highly selective and
27 > not all who wish to join will make the cut. The team will be limited to
28 > 3 people for a probationary period so we don't get dumped in the deep
29 > end right away, and it will never have more than 5 people."
30 >
31 > I don't think it should really be a job given to people who want to do it
32 > for the sake of it. The last team appeared to be the right set, based on
33 > their experience, and seemed to take the job because it needed to be done,
34 > not because it was seen as some sort of elite team. Maybe I'm being a bit
35 > sensitive to the nuance of the language, but I think the tone matters.
36
37 In a volunteer community, people only get really committed to things
38 they want to do. How do you propose to change that?
39
40 > The numbers others have commented on; I concur that it seems a bit limited
41 > (in the longer-term) to cover the timezones and ensure timely coverage.
42 > Expanding on that a bit, I think it would be good to stipulate some sort of
43 > cross-cultural mix: a team made up of purely North Americans or Anglophones
44 > is not going to be as attuned to the sensitivities of the diverse user base
45 > as is needed, imo.
46
47 I agree that the time zone coverage could be a bit limited with this
48 number of people. One reason for this is that we don't need to catch
49 100% of the possible things that could happen, and we don't need to
50 stare at IRC windows or mailing lists all day lonng.
51
52 You're right, Gentoo's members come from all over the world. That
53 doesn't mean that Gentoo itself cannot have a single culture, though,
54 wherever we came from originally.
55
56 > Wernfried Haas wrote:
57 > > This is quite similar to how warnings andbans are done on the forums,
58 > > we always document who warned/banned whom and for what reason and it
59 > > has worked quite well so far there.
60 >
61 > ++ to documentation, and the points others raised about an appeals
62 > mechanism. Amne also mentioned discussion with the "offender" before
63 > sanctions are imposed. While I agree that you don't want to get into an
64 > argument with people, I think you're going to have to accept that people
65 > *will* argue about it (even more so given that it's techies) and your team
66 > needs to be ready to justify their decisions. I have no issue with a mute
67 > being imposed first (for a few hours) and the discussion taking place at
68 > that point. But there does need to be that discussion, and the earlier the
69 > better, so that people are brought into line with community expectations at
70 > an early stage, when the conflict is less.
71
72 I agree that the team could certainly make its rationale available
73 (logs, interpretations of the CoC) upon request by someone it took
74 action against. I don't agree with discussions or arguments with that
75 person, because they will drag the team down.
76
77 Thanks,
78 Donnie
79 --
80 gentoo-project@g.o mailing list

Replies

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