Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] CoC round 2 (or is it 10? ;)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:33:32
Message-Id: 1192465378l.2574l.0l@spike
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] CoC round 2 (or is it 10? ;) by Steve Long
On 2007.10.14 13:39, Steve Long wrote:
> Chrissy Fullam wrote: > >> Donnie Berkholz wrote: > >> Here is the summary from today's council meeting. The > >> complete log will show up at > > <snip> > > - The CoC is in effect, but it needs a new enforcement section > since > the > > proctors were disbanded. The council is sending discussion of this > to > > the gentoo-project list, to come up with proposals for three > points: > > - who enforces it > > - musikc said devrel could > > - tsunam said userrel could > > <snip> > > > > I wanted to clarify, please understand the intent behind my part of > the > > conversation was that devrel and userrel should continue to share > the > > responsibility as appropriate, and continue to work together, > including > > the questionable/overlapping areas. The above may have been > misinterpreted > > by some to indicate 'pick which one', when my intent was a joined > front on > > enforcing the CoC. > > > That seems reasonable, since the two groups who need equal treatment > in an > even-handed, impartial manner, are the users and the devs. I'd be > happier > if user-reps were considered for the pool as well, since devs all > seem > to > know each other fairly well and are quite a close-knit virtual > community. > Closing ranks happens: deal with it or not. *shrug* YMMV. > > >> Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > - how to enforce it > > > - whether it's active or passive enforcement > Er well I'd say passive enforcements what you've had so far (at least > as far > as the dev m-l, which is where many issues seem to surface, goes) and > it > hasn't worked out very well, which was why there was the long > "discussion" > on dev[1] followed by the decision to establish the proctors[2]. > > > > - which actions are appropriate > > > > IMO muting a thread/locking a forum post/setting irc +m for 24 > hours/forever/however long the ops think it needs, with > email/privmsg/pm > discussion with whichever people are most vociferously flaming each > other > (as decided by the mods.) > > > > - If the -project list does not come up with a draft, dberkholz > will > > > write one based on -project discussion to vote upon at the > November > > > council meeting. > > Of course, you're going to need people who have experience of forum > moderation, since that's the closest to email. IRC ops can overreact > in > this context, since they have to close a > flamewar/cursing-match/abusive > situation down in real-time, so their instinct is naturally to set +b > for > the medium. > > [1] > focus=46611 > [2] > > > -- > gentoo-project@g.o mailing list >
Steve, Some interesting points ... control of any written channel can only be passive, in the sense that controllers are always responding after the event. The possible exception is a moderated mailing list. How are passive and active defined in this context then? Passive would have to be the controllers wait for a complaint before acting and active would be the controllers work in as close to real time as the medium allows, on things they notice for themselves as happens in IRC and forums. They are always reactive regardless. Most of the proctors actions were carried out in private, this seemed to work best since most people hate to be publicly asked to exercise restraint. We don't need a new project to continue this sort of activity, nor do we need to add to the scope of any existing project. Anyone can do it anytime. Curbing the worst excesses of friends is one of the things we can all do for one another. Continued poor behavior should be referred to the appropriate body in the normal way. The -dev mailing list seems to have calmed down since the proctors most public action, when a number of users had their posting rights suspended briefly. I'm unsure if the creation of -project played a big part in this or not. Judging by the number of posts to -project, I think its unlikely. I'm more inclined to believe that the bloodletting on that particular thread was something that everyone was aware of and nobody wanted to risk repeating. Thus the proctors served their purpose. Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) Is/was a member of gentoo-forums gentoo-ops gentoo-treecleaners gentoo-proctors -- gentoo-project@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
[gentoo-project] Re: CoC round 2 (or is it 10? ;) Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
Re: [gentoo-project] CoC round 2 (or is it 10? ;) Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>