1 |
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:39 AM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On 06/27/19 10:15, Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > No matter what the policy is set to, somebody will be upset. However, |
6 |
> > we should still have a published policy. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> Saying something as a member of the council does not mean implementing |
9 |
> something as a member of the council, though only little effort |
10 |
> separates them. Blaming ComRel for what others did not do and for not |
11 |
> setting policy for the council, from which it draws its mandate and to |
12 |
> which it reports (not dictates), are both absurd. |
13 |
|
14 |
Nobody is blaming anybody for this. I simply said that we ought to |
15 |
have a published policy. |
16 |
|
17 |
Heck, I'll blame myself: I could have filed a bug or brought the issue |
18 |
up in an agenda call. I'll file a bug now and Comrel/Council can |
19 |
figure out what they want to do. |
20 |
|
21 |
> Thus by the implication of proctors own published policy the publication |
22 |
> of all proctors data is less important than contacting the subject of a |
23 |
> complaint to resolve the matter before disciplinary action is taken, |
24 |
> curiously there is no indication that this was carried through in the |
25 |
> instance which spawned this discussion. |
26 |
|
27 |
No disciplinary action was taken in this case (you'll note that the |
28 |
section you quoted said nothing of warnings - a warning is a decision |
29 |
to not take action over a violation). However, I'll agree that the |
30 |
page could probably be cleaner. It was written in stages, with |
31 |
general content not actually being written by the Proctors themselves, |
32 |
and then it was implemented in actual procedure further down. The end |
33 |
result is that you get stuff that is more general at the top and stuff |
34 |
that is more procedural at the bottom. |
35 |
|
36 |
> If proctors do not add value in areas in which ComRel operates and |
37 |
> ComRel operates everywhere that proctors do, how is the existence of |
38 |
> proctors justified? |
39 |
|
40 |
Comrel and Proctors are two different approaches to a somewhat similar problem. |
41 |
|
42 |
Proctors are intended to take action quickly, but on a small scale. |
43 |
We issue warnings, or short-term bans. The goal is to try to moderate |
44 |
our communications and improve the general atmosphere. We don't deal |
45 |
with serious issues. |
46 |
|
47 |
Comrel is much more deliberative and take a much longer time to make |
48 |
decisions (at least from what I've seen). They tend to deal with more |
49 |
serious issues, and sometimes ones where the only solution is to expel |
50 |
somebody from the community. |
51 |
|
52 |
Proctors operates fairly publicly - all our decisions are public, and |
53 |
we only deal with things that happen in public. This allows a lot |
54 |
more transparency. Comrel tends to operate more in private, dealing |
55 |
sometimes with interpersonal issues that are not public, which hinders |
56 |
transparency. |
57 |
|
58 |
I can't speak for everybody on Council who approved resurrecting |
59 |
Proctors, but in general I would say that one of the goals was that |
60 |
Proctors would triage a lot of smaller issues so that they don't bog |
61 |
down in Comrel, and that faster responses might help to provide |
62 |
feedback to our lists/channels/etc so that the overall tenor of |
63 |
conversation improves. |
64 |
|
65 |
Put more simply: Proctors is a flyswatter, and Comrel is more of a |
66 |
sledgehammer; when you're dealing with insects, the flyswatter is more |
67 |
agile and tends to leave fewer holes in the wall. |
68 |
|
69 |
> > All Proctors actions and bugs (whether action is taken or not) are |
70 |
> > public. Anybody can review what we're doing and raise whatever |
71 |
> > concerns they wish, as you have done. |
72 |
> > |
73 |
> By the proctors own published policy, cited above, that claim is false. |
74 |
> Yes, the bugs are, by policy public, but all actions taken and not |
75 |
> cannot possibly be documented, please do not overgeneralize. |
76 |
|
77 |
Read our resolution process (which granted is only a few months old, |
78 |
so it wasn't followed exactly the first few months after we were |
79 |
reconstituted). The first thing we do when cases are opened is open a |
80 |
public bug. All actions will be documented in these bugs. |
81 |
|
82 |
In any case, the process speaks for itself and is on our webpage. |
83 |
Anybody can read exactly what is done and search bugzilla for our |
84 |
alias. Arguing over what is or isn't an "action" is silly - the |
85 |
process is there to read. |
86 |
|
87 |
> > Of course. And that is why we have the opportunity for feedback. All |
88 |
> > policies need refinement over time, and Council is the appropriate |
89 |
> > place to bring concerns about the meaning of the CoC. |
90 |
> > |
91 |
> And enforcing bodies are, or at least should be, suitable points of |
92 |
> contact for concerns regarding their handling of the CoC. |
93 |
|
94 |
Sure, and I've explained my reasoning in applying the CoC. If you're |
95 |
unsatisfied with my reading of the CoC, the Council has ultimate |
96 |
responsibility, and we respect their decisions. |
97 |
|
98 |
Ultimately though no policy around human interaction will ever be |
99 |
completely precise in its formulation. At best you end up with |
100 |
principles and guidances that evolve over time. |
101 |
|
102 |
And that is why Proctors is designed to be more like a flyswatter than |
103 |
a sledgehammer. It WON'T be perfect. However, it also won't leave |
104 |
holes in the wall. A few seem to be expressing great concern over a |
105 |
warning, and even if a ban had been issued it would be over already. |
106 |
I get that it is a somewhat new operation, but it isn't intended that |
107 |
anybody who receives a Proctors warning will fall on their sword in |
108 |
disgrace. If anybody has suggestions for how warnings can be worded |
109 |
so that people take them seriously and improve how they communicate, |
110 |
but don't feel like they're being driven out of Gentoo, I'm certainly |
111 |
interested. |
112 |
|
113 |
> Your argument appears to be essentially that you were bound to act |
114 |
> because a bug was filed, while proctors policy explicitly states that it |
115 |
> has the option to not enforce it own policies even when it considers a |
116 |
> violation to have occurred: |
117 |
> "The following disciplinary actions may or may not be enforced when the |
118 |
> Proctors become aware of a direct CoC violation." |
119 |
> Please explain. |
120 |
|
121 |
Sure. None of those disciplinary actions were enforced in this case. |
122 |
|
123 |
-- |
124 |
Rich |