| 1 |
On 2016.10.07 02:13, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Speaking of a conflict of interest, I would like to point out for |
| 6 |
> the record |
| 7 |
> > that devrel and userrel were aliased as "proctors" in previous |
| 8 |
> > documentation. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Actually, the Proctors were a third project distinct from Devrel and |
| 12 |
> Userrel (though there was probably overlap in membership, etc). They |
| 13 |
> lasted all of a few days. They were created along with the CoC and |
| 14 |
> never really got to function as intended. They were intended to |
| 15 |
> operate a bit like forum mods for the lists, locking discussions that |
| 16 |
> were out of control, issuing short-term bans to try to discourage |
| 17 |
> flaming, and so on. I was around when they were formed and disbanded, |
| 18 |
> but I wasn't on the inside back then so I didn't appreciate the |
| 19 |
> politics that caused them to fail. A few others who were around back |
| 20 |
> then could better relay the story. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> The proctors were never intended to deal with serious complaints about |
| 23 |
> individual behavior that might warrant kicking somebody out. There |
| 24 |
> has been talk of trying to bring back the role, with the goal of |
| 25 |
> trying to nip bad behavior in the bud before it grows into a big mess. |
| 26 |
> If we went down that road then Proctors would have a lot less rigor in |
| 27 |
> their activities, and could hand out "punishments" with almost no due |
| 28 |
> process/etc, but the "punishments" would be things like a few days ban |
| 29 |
> from IRC or other minimal sanctions, with a strict upper limit on |
| 30 |
> their powers. Basically they'd be handing out slaps on the wrist. |
| 31 |
> Issues that couldn't be handled in this way could be escalated to |
| 32 |
> Comrel. The idea would be that when a problem starts they could |
| 33 |
> quickly step in and moderate/warn/ban/etc to try to keep the overall |
| 34 |
> tone of the channel/list/etc in line with the CoC, as opposed to what |
| 35 |
> happens today where two parties can snipe at each other for months |
| 36 |
> until both are screaming for blood. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> -- |
| 39 |
> Rich |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Rich, |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
The term Proctor(s) is ambiguous in the history of the Gentoo and |
| 47 |
the CoC. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
In early versions of the CoC it clearly refers to userrel and devrel, |
| 50 |
and anyone else charged with CoC enforcement. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
The term was used concurrently as a name for the Proctors project |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
The CoC history can be found on sources.gentoo.org. As you say, |
| 55 |
in GuideXML. The votes to approve the original CoC and changes are |
| 56 |
mostly recorded in council meeting logs. Mostly, because its |
| 57 |
difficult to compare the last CVS version and first wiki version. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
We need to be very careful of not having "random edits" to the |
| 60 |
CoC as its a document controlled by the council. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
As a member of the original Proctors until the end, I can confirm that |
| 63 |
most of what you say about the Proctors project is correct. I don't |
| 64 |
think its useful to this discussion to go into the reasons for the |
| 65 |
Proctors being wound up. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
Regards, |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Roy Bamford |
| 71 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 72 |
elections |
| 73 |
gentoo-ops |
| 74 |
forum-mods |
Archives