Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: desultory <desultory@g.o>
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Cc: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 05:06:07
Message-Id: 2ff6b8ef-5742-b683-f58b-64546943270c@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions by Rich Freeman
On 02/03/19 06:53, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 11:22 PM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote: >> >> On 02/02/19 08:41, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> So far the proctors have mainly focused on areas like the >>> lists/bugzilla where productive Gentoo development occur which lack >>> any other moderation. When other moderation teams are already >>> creating a place for productive Gentoo work we haven't gotten as >>> involved yet, such as: >>> >>> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1090810-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-50.html >>> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1080592-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-25.html >>> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1049438-start-0-postdays-0-postorder-asc-highlight-.html >>> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1091348.html >>> >> Four topics in an expressly off-topic forum, none of which were actually >> in the state that was claimed by the complainant, makes for a rather >> poor example of where proctors have not "gotten as involved yet". Given >> that there was nothing to get involved in. > > They simply illustrate that the code of conduct not really being applied. >
No, at "worst" they illustrate that it is not being overly strictly enforced where it is specifically noted that is less strictly enforced.
> The Code of Conduct simply states that it applies to Gentoo's "public > communication mediums." It makes no exceptions for forums that claim > to be off-topic. >
Nor had I claimed that it did, I was pointing out that the cited topics were not apropos Gentoo while in a section that is expressly for, or at least allowing for, such discussions. They would indeed be inappropriate otherwise.
> If we think that part of Gentoo's mission ought to be competing with > 4chan or whatever maybe it needs to be amended... >
Given the claimed degree of effect that 4chan has had on global politics of late, there have been worse ideas suggested. ;) Though, in all seriousness continuing to provide a longstanding social area on the one platform, outside of the mailing lists, that Gentoo itself actually provides hardly seems to qualify as competing with 4chan in any regard, be it scale, tone, reach, or any other.
>> >>> I'm not saying that we need some kind of mad rush to consolidate all >>> moderation activity (otherwise I'd be proposing this). >> >> CoC enforcement does not >> appear to be effectively implemented even in that limited scope; despite >> evident efforts to engage in scope creep. This is a distinctly >> concerning trend, as it rather strongly indicates that the current >> proctors project either cannot or will not actually undertake its >> mandate, while it seeks to expand its direct sphere of responsibility; > > Citation? >
If you are seriously asking for it, I could compile some more obvious instances, though it would take some time as it would be a necessarily manual process.
> I am speaking only for myself, not for proctors, and insofar as I'm > stating my own opinion so far I've said: > > 1. We shouldn't move to consolidate Forum/IRC moderators under Proctors. >
I completely agree.
> 2. Proctors shouldn't receive appeals from these teams, but that like > Proctors appeals ought to go to Comrel. >
Again, I completely agree. Obviously, just to be explicit about it, with the group issuing the initial sanction being the first point of appeal.
> How this suggests that Proctors is trying to increase its scope is > unclear to me. I personally agree that Proctors is still getting > re-established and should continue to focus more on areas lacking > moderation until processes/etc are better documented and are working > well in practice. >
Comments about forum moderators and #gentoo ops being effectively proctors gave that distinct impression, my point is essentially that while the roles might serve largely the same purpose the have differing scope and there is historical justification for keeping it that way.
> That said, the lists haven't been that terrible of late, certainly not > compared to years past. Proctors has generally been trying to avoid > issuing warnings for every sentence that is a bit snarky. >
Both of those points are distinctly obvious, especially the former, mercifully so.