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 |