Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Dale]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote:
>> It seems to me that William posted something that someone else didn't
>> like.
> That seems like a pretty big assumption.  How do you know that it has
> something to do with something he posted?

OK.  Are you saying he did nothing wrong and was banned from a mailing
list, resigned as trustee and retired as a developer for doing nothing
at all?  If that is the case, then Gentoo and ComRel has much larger
problems than it seems.  While I said "posted", I basically meant he
said or did something that was not to someone's liking.  I'm basing that
on what William wrote himself.  I seem to recall he said he was banned
from a mailing list in one of the many posts here or in a link he
posted.  It would seem to me that he posted something on that mailing
list that someone felt shouldn't be posted.  My email is not a legal
document where I must include each and every single thing that may or
may not need to be listed.  My email was my take on the topic based on
what I read.  I might add, I was here when this happened.  I do have a
very vague recollection of it.  I suspect that I saw some spill over
threads and not the original cause of it tho.  I'm certainly not basing
my replies on what I recall about it.  That's way to long ago. 

>
>> I mentioned I help admin a website.  If someone violates the rules, I
>> contact them on it and they chose to delete their account instead of
>> dealing with the matter, it doesn't mean they can never rejoin the
>> site.  It does mean that if they do and I know it, then they would have
>> to address the previous problem.
> That is basically the same as Gentoo.  I've yet to see an appeal where
> the person appealing wasn't told in writing exactly what the concern
> was.  If they weren't that would certainly be something I'd be
> concerned about in an appeal.

I agree.  No one should have action taken on them without the person
first being warned.

>
> Personally, I care far more about whether somebody is likely to follow
> the CoC TODAY than the exact circumstances of how they may have
> violated it 8+ years ago.  ANY new recruit has to demonstrate that
> they are likely to follow the CoC and ones who may have violated it in
> the past are subject to more scrutiny.

I think the question here is this.  Was the ban from the mailing list
all of it punishment wise or was there some secret discussion later that
lead to William being effectively blacklisted?  If what William did was
that bad, shouldn't he be told, whether he left Gentoo or not?  On the
site I help with, when I ban someone, they are notified of why they are
banned.  They are also given a email address to email to appeal the
ban.  On that site, it is done automatically by the software.  In this
situation tho, it seems that William has not been advised of that
decision, if one was made at all.  Again, this is happening in what
others call a black box. 

>
> Something that keeps coming up in this discussion is reference to
> process and procedure within Comrel.  The concern is nobody
> understands how they made the decision, or what rules they were
> supposed to follow.  When appeals are discussed they're in terms of
> whether Comrel followed the rules when it did its job.  I get that
> courts often work this way.
>
> However, I think we should be far more concerned about outcome.  Is
> somebody willing to follow the CoC, or not?  Are they able to follow
> the CoC, or not?  Perhaps the way the black box works can be improved,
> and maybe we can expose more of the gears inside, but what matters the
> most is that it comes up with the right decision.
>
> So, if you don't like the results of a decision by all means appeal
> it.  I can't promise that Council will follow the same rules Comrel
> followed.  As far as I'm aware the Council hasn't really set any rules
> as to how it judges appeals.  Ultimately what you'll get is an
> independent evaluation of whatever concerns Comrel raises (or which
> were originally raised to Comrel), and any subsequent behavior of the
> parties involved, and a judgement as to how the situation should be
> handled.

I agree mostly here as well.  I also believe that William needs to
appeal the decision, whatever that was or if one was ever made beyond
the email ban.  Personally, based on William's posts here, it doesn't
seem that a official decision was made.  Again, black box that we can't
see into. 


>
> And this brings me back to a concern I mentioned a long time ago in
> this thread: appeal on the basis that you've proven that you're a good
> member of the community.  If the basis of your appeal is that your
> behavior shouldn't matter, well, don't be surprised if it is defeated.
> If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel is out to get you, well,
> I'm sure it will get considered and maybe some reforms may come out of
> it if there is something to it, but whether you stay or go is a
> separate matter.  If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel didn't
> complete step 2.3.1 of the Comrel rules of procedure then maybe we'll
> ask Comrel to try to follow the rules better or fix them after sending
> you on your way.  If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel shouldn't
> exist in the first place, well, hopefully that isn't all there is to
> it.  Ultimately we're going to be more concerned with whether the CoC
> is being followed and is likely to be followed.

I can see this point as well.  As I mentioned before, I was here when
the mailing lists were a disaster.  It was a long time ago but I recall
it being bad.  Even tho today no one actually seems to read every post,
people do know that there is a policing body that can deal with the
occasional problem.  It's sort of like driving by a police car that is
very visible.  It's natural to make sure you are within the law as you
drive by.  We do have the occasional spammer or something that pops up
and then disappears.  I recall seeing someone post that a good while
back.  Just knowing that the mailing lists are being policed helps keep
it within reason.  I wouldn't want that gone either.  I wouldn't want
the mailing lists to go back to what they used to be years ago.  If the
goal William has is to get rid of ComRel, that likely won't end well. 
Changes to ComRel if needed, sure.  End it, I hope not. 

>
> So, if you appeal a Comrel decision there aren't any magic words to
> say.  Hiring a better lawyer isn't likely to impress anybody.  You
> really just need to show that you have changed or are likely to
> change.  And if you want to be a dev and aren't one yet, just interact
> positively with the community and nobody is going to have something to
> object to.  You don't need to agree with every policy or be afraid of
> speaking up when you disagree.  However, you do need to try to
> maintain a semi-professional attitude and treat people with respect,
> and you do need to follow the rules.  There are cases where I disagree
> with most of the devs and probably the entire Council, and I've voiced
> those publicly.  However, that doesn't stop me from working
> productively with anybody and it isn't personal and I follow the rules
> as they've been agreed upon, so I've yet to see anything come of it.
> There are devs who are fairly antisocial and they just sit in their
> corner doing commits all day, and nobody bothers them either as long
> as they follow QA policy.  The people who get dragged into the Comrel
> process seem to be creating trouble in IRC (on channels, PMs, etc), or
> somethings on the mailing lists.  Often it is just an
> argument/banter/etc that gets out of hand, but instead of just
> apologizing and changing they double down and dig in.  That is a very
> broad generalization and a somewhat ignorant one since I only hear
> about cases that are appealed or which become so big that they become
> more public knowledge.

I have to do the same thing on the site I help with.  There are rules I
don't agree with but I still have to enforce them.  If I don't, then I
need to either step down on my own or will be forced to leave.  As you
say, if William has a problem with something, speak up and explain what
is wrong but do it within the current rules. 

>
> I'm not saying the way that Comrel operates doesn't matter.  I'm
> certainly not saying that there isn't room for improvement.  However,
> any changes that get made, and any criticism of how it works, need to
> be rooted in the ultimate goal: having a community that follows the
> CoC.  If the concern is with the CoC itself that is also something
> that can be changed, and anybody is free to argue that it isn't right.
> However, there isn't going to be some loophole where with the right
> argument you can basically mistreat others in the community and get
> away with it.  Nor is the bar going to be set unreasonably high for
> Comrel to deal with people who do so.
>

I think part of the problem may be the "black box" method currently is
use.  I know on the site I help on, staff knows and sees things that
members can't see.  As a example, someone posts a reply that clearly
violates the rules and then immediately deletes the post.  We as staff
can see that deleted post.  Regular members can't see it tho.  If staff
takes action on that post, then the members have no idea what happened
to cause the action.  Members are running around complaining that we
restricted/banned someone for nothing because they can't see the post we
see.  Thing is, we know we did the right thing.  Just like with ComRel
tho, we can't post a screenshot or anything that shows why the action
was taken.  Members remain clueless and sometimes angry.  This is
basically where we are, and maybe William too.  We don't know what
happened in the black box.  Until William appeals it, he may not know
either. 

This is likely my last reply.  While I would like to see Gentoo improved
and all, I have to much going on in the real world to spend time
debating it.  I just felt the need to make my post in case it would
help.  If it doesn't, Gentoo is still Gentoo. 

Dale

:-)  :-)