| 1 |
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:25:34 +0000 (UTC) |
| 4 |
> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> The general rule is that you appeal an irc ban to the team |
| 7 |
>> responsible for the irc channel (#gentoo-ops for #gentoo, ComRel for |
| 8 |
>> #gentoo-dev and individual project teams for #gentoo-* channels). |
| 9 |
>> If an appeal of the team decision is needed, it should be either |
| 10 |
>> directed to the Gentoo Freenode Group Contacts |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> #gentoo is currently operated under the assumption that appeals go to |
| 13 |
> ComRel. Users who appeal their ban to the team get a review and as a |
| 14 |
> rule are advised to contact ComRel if they want to appeal the team |
| 15 |
> decision. The #gentoo ops team has never used Gentoo Freenode Group |
| 16 |
> Contacts for appealing #gentoo user bans, so this is a bit novel to |
| 17 |
> me. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Gentoo Freenode Group Contacts is a (team of?) contacts that represent |
| 20 |
> Gentoo to Freenode. I don't see how or why they should be directly |
| 21 |
> involved in channel user management as they aren't now - Gentoo |
| 22 |
> Freenode Group Contacts simply manage official "#gentoo*" channels and |
| 23 |
> their ownership with the network. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
>> (#gentoo-groupcontacts) the people that interact with Freenode and |
| 26 |
>> can in last resort close a channel or take ownershipt of it or ComRel |
| 27 |
>> if there was an abuse of power by a Developer. All actions by ComRel |
| 28 |
>> can be appelead for the Council. ComRel is involved here as this was |
| 29 |
>> done by UserRel before. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> OK, that's channel management, then, and not user-per-channel |
| 32 |
> management. If you manage a channel under the #gentoo moniker, then you |
| 33 |
> get to upkeep some minimal standards as you will be regarded as part of |
| 34 |
> the wider community. Fair enough. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> But we don't actually manage cross-channel user management at |
| 37 |
> all right now. Someone banned on #gentoo can go to #gentoo-chat for |
| 38 |
> support or ranting or whatever she is allowed to do there (or anywhere |
| 39 |
> else). This is a Good Thing. We don't need a higher body specifically |
| 40 |
> for that. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Jeroen, |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
thank you for clearing up the above. |
| 45 |
Gentoo group contacts can and have been reached in the past about channel |
| 46 |
management issues, not about individual bans. The group contacts would get |
| 47 |
involved in a case where a channel no longer has any active moderators or |
| 48 |
when someone argues the channel has gone "beserk". |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
>> One thing you mention that might be worth, is having a way to make |
| 51 |
>> clear that a bugzilla account is "disabled". I don't think we should |
| 52 |
>> be explicit about an account being banned. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> "Disabled" is ambiguous. We currently appear to use "retired" for |
| 55 |
> developers on bugzilla. I think "inactive" might be a better |
| 56 |
> generic word for closed bugzilla accounts. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
I prefer "inactive" as well. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Regards, |
| 61 |
Jorge |
Archives