Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Shutting down the Off the Wall
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 21:09:07
Message-Id: IWVYEW6C.U5RMSGEF.2F3ASUND@QPTNW2QM.EITCLMZP.XYT4TDOA
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Shutting down the Off the Wall by Ulrich Mueller
1 On 2020.12.12 19:32, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
2 > >>>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2020, Roy Bamford wrote:
3 >
4 > > On 2020.12.12 15:15, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
5 > >> >>>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2020, Roy Bamford wrote:
6 > >> > The original Proctors project was created by the council of the
7 > day
8 > >> > to be a quick reaction short slap response team to CoC
9 > violations.
10 > >> > Then one day, a council member did something to get slapped.
11 > >> > Instead of calming down and reflecting on events, by which time,
12 > the
13 > >> > slap would have worn off, said council member appealed directly
14 > to
15 > >> > council and managed to get the Proctors disbanded.
16 > >>
17 > >> That's very different from my recollection of events. The relevant
18 > >> Council log [1] also tells a different story.
19 >
20 > > I have the 'benefit', that may not be the right word, of being the
21 > on
22 > > the proctors team at the time.
23 >
24 > OK, then let's look into the details. As I recall it, disbanding of
25 > was
26 > triggered by the infamous "Living in a bubble" thread on the
27 > gentoo-dev
28 > mailing list in 2007:
29 >
30 > - beejay posts a bad joke, disparaging Paludis and insulting ciaranm
31 > [2]
32 > - As can be expected, several people react to this
33 > - A Proctor (neddyseagoon) issues a warning [3], about half an hour
34 > after the original posting
35 > - Shortly after that, another Proctor (amne) suspends two peoples'
36 > (ciaranm and geoman) accounts [4]
37 > - At which point a Council member (wolf31o2) complains about the
38 > Proctors' action (in his opinion, banning the wrong people) and
39 > calls
40 > for disbanding of the Proctors [5]
41 > - amne rage-quits [6]
42 > - A discussion follows about the Proctors project, and that they
43 > should
44 > develop some guidelines. Which never happens.
45 >
46 > There's also a summary of this by marienz, from a Proctor's point of
47 > view [7].
48 >
49 > So please tell me, where in the above chain of event do you see a CoC
50 > violation by a Council member?
51 >
52 > And of course, nothing of this is relevant for the present discussion.
53 > Still, if you make accusations like this:
54 >
55 > >> > That sent the message to the community that the CoC did not apply
56 > >> > to council members. The CoC has never recovered.
57 >
58 > ... then I pretty much think that you should back them by actual
59 > facts.
60 >
61 > Ulrich
62 >
63 > >> [1] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20070712.txt
64 > [2] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/6feb6e4bb68ca5e7bffc68a3db3b9567
65 > [3] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/c407c20291a64f371979f54ed7b1025c
66 > [4] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/028d7f7cb5dbba891c3278ca4e51f11f
67 > [5] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/1d81fae0e3fad23f894a092255edfbe6
68 > [6] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/4378a6d6f0986a6e1384231d4ba86b02
69 > [7] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/6707daa4c9368ba48d6997ca16162c16
70 >
71
72 Ulrich,
73
74 You are missing that wolf31o2 gets suspended for ignoring the
75 Proctors warning and makes it known that he's not happy.
76 There is a lot of email and IRC traffic, including from the dev-rel lead.
77 I don't recall how much was public but probably not a lot.
78 Most of the Proctors team quits inside the next 12 hours or so, due
79 to demonstrable lack of support from people who should support the
80 CoC and its enforcement but choose not to.
81
82 The Council subsequently disbands the Proctors.
83
84 The Proctors were acting to defend the CoC. A warning was issued and
85 ignored. The poster that ignored the warning happened to be a council
86 member. The council was supposed to support the Proctors in the CoC
87 defence not protest the actions and subsequently destroy them.
88
89 Its not a direct CoC violation, its visibly going against a CoC enforcement.
90
91 --
92 Regards,
93
94 Roy Bamford
95 (Neddyseagoon) a member of
96 elections
97 gentoo-ops
98 forum-mods
99 arm64

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Shutting down the Off the Wall "Andreas K. Hüttel" <dilfridge@g.o>