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

[desultory]

On 06/28/19 06:32, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:39 AM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/27/19 10:15, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>> No matter what the policy is set to, somebody will be upset.  However,
>>> we should still have a published policy.
>>>
>> Saying something as a member of the council does not mean implementing
>> something as a member of the council, though only little effort
>> separates them. Blaming ComRel for what others did not do and for not
>> setting policy for the council, from which it draws its mandate and to
>> which it reports (not dictates), are both absurd.
>
> Nobody is blaming anybody for this.  I simply said that we ought to
> have a published policy.
>
> Heck, I'll blame myself: I could have filed a bug or brought the issue
> up in an agenda call.  I'll file a bug now and Comrel/Council can
> figure out what they want to do.
>
>> Thus by the implication of proctors own published policy the publication
>> of all proctors data is less important than contacting the subject of a
>> complaint to resolve the matter before disciplinary action is taken,
>> curiously there is no indication that this was carried through in the
>> instance which spawned this discussion.
>
> No disciplinary action was taken in this case (you'll note that the
> section you quoted said nothing of warnings - a warning is a decision
> to not take action over a violation).  However, I'll agree that the
> page could probably be cleaner.  It was written in stages, with
> general content not actually being written by the Proctors themselves,
> and then it was implemented in actual procedure further down.  The end
> result is that you get stuff that is more general at the top and stuff
> that is more procedural at the bottom.
>
SO, by your logic: "The following disciplinary actions may or may not be
enforced when the Proctors become aware of a direct CoC violation." does
not apply to warnings because warnings, which are actions by an
enforcement body to promote compliance while avoiding direct
disciplinary action, are somehow not actions, and are therefore by your
logic not subject to the publication requirements... despite having been
done in public.

>> If proctors do not add value in areas in which ComRel operates and
>> ComRel operates everywhere that proctors do, how is the existence of
>> proctors justified?
>
> Comrel and Proctors are two different approaches to a somewhat similar problem.
>
> Proctors are intended to take action quickly, but on a small scale.
> We issue warnings, or short-term bans.  The goal is to try to moderate
> our communications and improve the general atmosphere.  We don't deal
> with serious issues.
>
> Comrel is much more deliberative and take a much longer time to make
> decisions (at least from what I've seen).  They tend to deal with more
> serious issues, and sometimes ones where the only solution is to expel
> somebody from the community.
>
> Proctors operates fairly publicly - all our decisions are public, and
> we only deal with things that happen in public.  This allows a lot
> more transparency.  Comrel tends to operate more in private, dealing
> sometimes with interpersonal issues that are not public, which hinders
> transparency.
>
> I can't speak for everybody on Council who approved resurrecting
> Proctors, but in general I would say that one of the goals was that
> Proctors would triage a lot of smaller issues so that they don't bog
> down in Comrel, and that faster responses might help to provide
> feedback to our lists/channels/etc so that the overall tenor of
> conversation improves.
>
So, it exists to, in theory, provide a patch over perceived
institutional inadequacies in ComRel which is considered to be too slow
to effectively operate in any but the most egregious cases. What about
its practical value, given that by your description proctors provides no
value in areas where ComRel is active?

> Put more simply: Proctors is a flyswatter, and Comrel is more of a
> sledgehammer; when you're dealing with insects, the flyswatter is more
> agile and tends to leave fewer holes in the wall.
>
I am sure that those subject to proctors actions, whether proctors
considers their actions to be actions or not, all welcome their newfound
status as insects to be swatted, not individuals with which to be reasoned.

>>> All Proctors actions and bugs (whether action is taken or not) are
>>> public.  Anybody can review what we're doing and raise whatever
>>> concerns they wish, as you have done.
>>>
>> By the proctors own published policy, cited above, that claim is false.
>> Yes, the bugs are, by policy public, but all actions taken and not
>> cannot possibly be documented, please do not overgeneralize.
>
> Read our resolution process (which granted is only a few months old,
> so it wasn't followed exactly the first few months after we were
> reconstituted).  The first thing we do when cases are opened is open a
> public bug.  All actions will be documented in these bugs.
>
I did read you policies, I have quoted them to you, telling me to read
them again is... unhelpful. Again I ask you: why it has taken a year for
proctors to act when you personally acknowledge that there have been
more significant violations of the CoC?

> In any case, the process speaks for itself and is on our webpage.
> Anybody can read exactly what is done and search bugzilla for our
> alias.  Arguing over what is or isn't an "action" is silly - the
> process is there to read.
>
So far, the process has spoken for itself by saying that warnings will
be issued for violations of policies which did not exist at the time the
warning was issued. This is not how community is fostered, this is how a
climate of distrust is fostered.

As for `Arguing over what is or isn't an "action"`, do kindly bear in
mind that you made that point, and that you did so with multiple
contradictions, so I guess silly me for seeking clarity.

>>> Of course.  And that is why we have the opportunity for feedback.  All
>>> policies need refinement over time, and Council is the appropriate
>>> place to bring concerns about the meaning of the CoC.
>>>
>> And enforcing bodies are, or at least should be, suitable points of
>> contact for concerns regarding their handling of the CoC.
>
> Sure, and I've explained my reasoning in applying the CoC.  If you're
> unsatisfied with my reading of the CoC, the Council has ultimate
> responsibility, and we respect their decisions.
>
At this point, I would consider it entirely fair to state that I am
indeed unsatisfied with the actions in question.

> Ultimately though no policy around human interaction will ever be
> completely precise in its formulation.  At best you end up with
> principles and guidances that evolve over time.
>
Should such "principles and guidances" not be know to those upon which
they will be enforced before they are actually enforced?

> And that is why Proctors is designed to be more like a flyswatter than
> a sledgehammer.  It WON'T be perfect.  However, it also won't leave
> holes in the wall.  A few seem to be expressing great concern over a
> warning, and even if a ban had been issued it would be over already.
> I get that it is a somewhat new operation, but it isn't intended that
> anybody who receives a Proctors warning will fall on their sword in
> disgrace.  If anybody has suggestions for how warnings can be worded
> so that people take them seriously and improve how they communicate,
> but don't feel like they're being driven out of Gentoo, I'm certainly
> interested.
>
If you think that I am demanding perfection, allow me to assuage your
concerns, I am not demanding perfection. I am, however, rather
disinclined to accept things being badly handled just because, as you
put it, "we're just stuck with the people willing to do the work", after
all one of the primary implications of being willing to do the work is
being willing to do it properly.

As for "expressing great concern over a warning", I am expressing
concern over failing to react repeatedly, followed by warning over a
policy which did not exist until after someone was warned for having
violated it. That "even if a ban had been issued it would be over
already" is utterly immaterial and, frankly a rather concerning
sentiment as it projects the impression that from your perspective it
does not matter if you handle something badly so long as it times out
all will be well, no harm done. Societies do not work that way.

Proctors is not new, it has been around in more or less its current form
for two days short of a full year, it has had more than enough time to
actually integrate itself into the social fabric of the distribution
which it theoretically serves, without disgracing anyone, or passing out
swords to fall on.

As for suggestions for wording of warnings, actually having a published
policy in place to which to refer, far and away preferably one which was
actually discussed in public beforehand would be beneficial. As would
interacting with people as people

>> Your argument appears to be essentially that you were bound to act
>> because a bug was filed, while proctors policy explicitly states that it
>> has the option to not enforce it own policies even when it considers a
>> violation to have occurred:
>> "The following disciplinary actions may or may not be enforced when the
>> Proctors become aware of a direct CoC violation."
>> Please explain.
>
> Sure.  None of those disciplinary actions were enforced in this case.
>