Re: [gentoo-project] Why should you *not* vote on existing Council members

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:49 AM Wulf C. Krueger <philantrop@×××××××.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/24/19 12:55 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > This is a negative statement about an individual - that simply is
> > off-topic for all public Gentoo forums.
>
> Just to understand this: The Gentoo CoC disallows for public negative
> statements about individuals?
>

Speaking personally (and a warning that I'm going to preface this with
general comment to address issues being raised in private before
answering your direct question):

So, based on some private reaction I've gotten (from several people),
I think that there is some misunderstanding of what Proctors is
intended to be.  Perhaps some of that misunderstanding is within
Proctors themselves so I certainly invite discussion around how our
CoC ought to be enforced.  IMO overall policy around this ought to be
up to Council, and I would certainly defer to any policy guidance that
comes from Council in acting in my role as a member of Proctors.

We didn't have functioning Proctors for a long time, and now that is
back we haven't had many actions.  It isn't surprising that a LOT is
being read into the first significant warning given to somebody who is
actually part of the community (and not just list spam/etc which was
an issue we previously dealt with without much controversy).

Proctors is intended to have a much lower bar for action than Comrel.
It is about trying to keep our lists on-topic and improve how we
discuss things.  It isn't about trying to figure out who the good guys
are or who the bad guys are.  I suspect that MANY of us have violated
the CoC at one point or another, and that is why we issue things like
warnings or short-term bans, and not long-term actions.  The goal is
to try to nudge us in the right direction.  If we're making an
example, it is about what was said, and not who said it.  We don't
want to drive people away.  If anything we want to try to help people
communicate in a way that makes it easier for everybody to stay.  In
this case, focusing on the issue (how QA policy is enforced) and not
the individual (who is doing the enforcing) makes it easier to talk
about outcomes without individuals getting defensive.

Much as is the case with your criticism, which I think was a
constructive way to raise a concern.  There are GOING to be concerns,
and I'm happy to see them discussed (maybe in separate thread though).
Proctors creates some of its own internal processes/policies, but
we're subject to our overall charter from Council/Comrel and are happy
to stay within it.  We are here (IMO) to serve.

Some post had to be the first to get a warning.  It doesn't mean that
it was the most serious violation in history.  We're not picking
winners/losers.  We were asked (via bug) to take action, and decided a
warning was appropriate.  Speaking personally I can only say because
it was that I felt that a warning was better than simply declaring
this to be fine.

Now, getting to your question:

* Using the correct forum for your post
Negative statements about individuals are NOT on-topic for our mailing
lists.  We have other forums, like Comrel, where these are
appropriate.  And of course it is always best to work things out
directly, but Comrel isn't my area of responsibility.

That doesn't mean that you can't criticize decisions or processes.
Let's just try to focus on what is being done, and not who is doing
it.  At least in public.

IMO some of the email threads around the Council elections are good
examples of how this sort of thing can be handled.  Invite candidates
to freely state their opinions.  Offer your own opinion on what
is/isn't a good way to do something.  Don't focus on individuals and
how they stack up against your criteria - let people decide for
themselves.

* Being judgmental, mean-spirited or insulting.
I won't repeat the above, but statements about the qualities held by
individuals are judgmental by their very nature, and perhaps are
insulting (again, just by their nature, regardless of intent).  I do
not (personally) think that there was any intention to be
mean-spirited or to cause harm.  Again, this isn't about judging the
individuals, just to point out that things could have been done
better.

So, while we shouldn't be just ignoring CoC warnings from Proctors, we
should focus more on how they can help us to think about better ways
to engage with each other.  The intent here isn't to be a blemish on
somebody's "record."  We should be looking forward, not backwards.

And I do regret that this came up around the timing of elections
insofar as it might cause people to judge the individual negatively
(or at least without stopping to consider similar behavior by other
candidates).  That was NOT my intent at least nor do I think it was
anybody else's.  If it causes open discussion around the role of CoC
and/or Proctors in Gentoo then I welcome that.  Ultimately the CoC
belongs to all of us, and I do not see Proctors as being some kind of
source of virtue.

As far as I'm aware nothing I've said about CoC contradicts anything
decided by Council, but some of this is my personal view as to how I
think things ought to work.  Council can of course set policy as they
see fit.  I doubt we'll ever completely agree as a community on any of
this, but hopefully we can find a balance that works.

-- 
Rich