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

[desultory]

On 12/04/20 07:45, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2020, desultory  wrote:
>
>>> Rationale:
>>>
>>> * provides zero value to the distribution
>> Which has been shown to be false.
>
> Which still leaves both a positive or negative value as possibilities.
>
Positive value has already been explained, repeatedly.

>> Given the precedent set by multiple council members, yourself
>> included, in the discussion of this very topic on the core mailing
>> list, the code of conduct does not apply to any medium which is not
>> visible to the public at large. Thus, given the council decision to
>> restrict public visibility of Off the Wall, there are definitionally
>> no code of conduct concerns there.
>
> 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.

> (This is quite similar to mailing lists, where you won't receive any
> messages unless you register. Still, we consider the mailing lists to be
> public media.)
>
If the code of conduct applies to the mailing lists, why is it so
broadly ignored and evidently entirely unenforced? Further, there are
official public archives of the lists, aside from core, and there is no
such public archive of the contents of Off the Wall, thus the lists are
presently distinctly more public than Off the Wall. That is, of course,
without even considering the propensity for core to leak.

>> Then again, given how strictly council members have been adhering to
>> the code of conduct in this public discussion, one could make the
>> argument that the code of conduct is itself null and void. Which would
>> again imply that there would be no call for the council to take the
>> action you propose. Though it would further imply that there is no
>> reason for Off the Wall to be subject to restricted access.
>
> Non sequitur.
>
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.

> Ulrich
>