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

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:24 AM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote:
>
> On 06/24/19 06:55, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Speaking only for my personal opinion:
> >
> by
> your espoused reasoning even filing a bug requesting ComRel intervention
> due to demonstrable violation of the CoC would not be a suitable venue
> for arguably negative comments regarding an individual, as (per ComRel
> [ComRel]) there is no indication that such bugs would necessarily be
> private.

There is also no indication that such bugs would be public.  IMO the
ComRel policy should define expectations of privacy because this has
been a problem in the past with Council appeals, which I believe I
have commented on the lists about previously.

In any case, Comrel can handle its own bugs, and unless somebody says
otherwise I'd probably consider them out of scope for proctors.

> By decreeing all arguably negative comments to be verboten, you have
> essentially instituted a policy of radicalization.

Your whole post is basically a negative comment about how the CoC is
being enforced, and does not contain personal attacks.  We can talk
about issues.  We can talk about policies/processes.  Just don't talk
about individual people.

> The mere act of telling a
> developer that they are acting badly is, by your logic, forbidden as it
> would be a statement which would arguably negatively reflect on an
> individual.

We only enforce the CoC on public lists.  If you are having this
discussion in private it would not be within the scope of proctors.
If somebody feels they're being harassed in private they can always go
to Comrel, but if you try to work constructively with an individual
and they are ignoring you it is better to just go to Comrel if the
matter is serious (assuming this is an interpersonal issue - if it is
a technical/quality issue QA would be more appropriate).

And talking about ISSUES is again fine.  If you notice a bug in an
eclass/ebuild that is causing problems then open a bug and talk about
it.  You can talk about it on the lists if appropriate.  QA can
connect the dots if there are trends involving individuals, or you can
privately suggest that they look for dots.

This isn't about suppressing issues.  This is about HOW we deal with them.

While it isn't Gentoo's policy I'd suggest taking a look at the FSF's
CoC.  It does a decent job (IMO) of explaining why personal attacks
are counterproductive even if you think they should be allowed, which
they are not (at least not unless Council says otherwise).

> > I'm not sure what comrel has to do with this.  I have no personal
> > insight into their thinking but I'm skeptical that they would be
> > concerned with one CoC warning unless it were a part of a larger
> > pattern of behavior.
> >
> Search engines are a things which exist. Bookmarks as well. Citing prior
> incidents is common practice when filing virtually any manner of
> grievance. By your espoused logic any arguably negative comment about
> anyone constitutes a violation, making a pattern of behavior trivial to
> establish as inoffensive arguably negative comments are not exactly hard
> to come by when one is set on taking feedback as actionably negative.

Sure, and if somebody says 3 mildly-negative things about somebody
over their 20 year dev career, I suspect that Comrel will probably
weigh the passing of time.

I mean, it isn't like they're kicking people out left and right...

The fact that search engines and archives exist is part of why we
don't attack people personally in the first place.  I mean, who wants
to work on a project which requires operating with your real name
where people non-professionally have at each other regularly?  To err
is human, and interpersonal conflict will always happen.  Professional
conduct is about handling these situations in a more effective manner
that reflects the realities that we all mess up from time to time.  It
isn't about ignoring issues, it is about recognizing that hitting
people with a bat doesn't necessarily inspire them to fix issues
either (again, read the FSF CoC for more elegant argument).

> Do pray tell why, by your logic comments regarding negative aspects of
> individuals are forbidden, but analogous comments regarding entire teams
> are not.

It isn't about the team either.  It is about the policies/processes/outcomes.

For example, we're discussing whether negative personal criticism
should be allowed on the lists.  That is just a policy decision.

If people are implementing a bad policy, the issue isn't with the
people, either individually or as a team.  That doesn't mean we need
300 commandments - just feedback.
If people aren't implementing a policy correctly, then the issue is
with the people, but if the people aren't already being dealt with
then there is also a problem with the process.

So, you can talk about outcomes and get those fixed.

Now, keep in mind that we're still a small organization and always
labor-constrained, so sometimes we're just stuck with the people
willing to do the work.

> > A complaint was made to proctors, and the proctors evaluated the
> > statement and determined it was a violation.  Dismissing a complaint
> > without taking action when it pertained to a Council member would
> > probably have been the worse outcome, IMO.
> >
> Quite the interesting stance there as well: any complaint at all against
> a member of the council should, by your logic, merit a public warning to
> the council member, no exceptions.

You skipped part of my statement, "proctors evaluated the statement
and determined it was a violation."

We obviously don't issue warnings when we determine there aren't violations.

Do you REALLY want us ignoring violations by individuals in senior
positions when there has been a complaint?

> > I'll agree that this was a somewhat borderline situation, and I was
> > personally concerned that a warning would itself lack empathy which
> > would of course be ironic.  However, we were asked for a decision and
> > made one, and in my proposed wording I did try to depersonalize and
> > contextualize the nature of Proctors actions.
> >
> It was ... a rather
> dramatic shifting of established norms.

Well, of course.  Proctors basically didn't exist for a decade.  ANY
action we take is a dramatic shifting of established norms.

Proctors has been existence for basically a full year.  Aside with
dealing with some spam/etc this is really the only significant action
it has taken in one year, and it was a warning.

I don't think it is realistic to have a Code of Conduct that we
actually intend to be followed and not expect to have at least a
warning issued once a year.

> [ComRel] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel

-- 
Rich