Robin H. Johnson wrote: [Tue Mar 13 2007, 06:05:10PM CDT] > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > > * Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please? > > Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first > > one that came to mind. > Suggestions welcome. We were stuck for other suitable names, and it was > my own suggestion for proctors, based on the dictionary definition: "an > official charged with various duties, esp. with the maintenance of good > order." [1]
Ubuntu uses "Community Council". I suggested "Community Relations". *Shrug* > > * I highly recommend reading http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct > > and our new doc side-by-side. The former provides strong, positive > The Ubuntu guidelines are well-mirrored in the existing etiquette > policy: > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=2 > Read them side by side (Ubuntu and the existing policy) is a little > harder, as the layout is very different, but the core message is the > same. One may argue with the content of either the old etiquette guide or the Ubuntu Code of Conduct, but I suspect that most would agree that the Ubuntu Code of Conduct is both more encouraging and better written. I think it's also much more encouraging and better written than is the proposed doc, as well. > However the existing policy has not worked. Reasons and theories > behind why are rife within Gentoo. You're arguing that a much more punitive doc is required because the previous doc has been ineffective? That's a reasonable argument, but I don't think I agree. The previous doc had no "moral weight", so to speak, because it was imposed on devs without any real discussion, and that's made it hard to enforce. Moreover, there's long been notable distrust of devrel, which historically made it hard for them to enforce it. My belief is that "developer buy-in" would make all of the difference in how effective a code of conduct would be. > > * I understand the desire to act quickly, so that it appears that Gentoo > > is doing something about this problem. However, I agree with those who > > think that a few days isn't really enough time for an adequate > > discussion. For this sort of policy to be effective, devs need to > > agree with it. The Council can still make temporary rules on Thursday > > while allowing the rest of the process to occur more leisurely. > As the council, you have charged us with ensuring a technical > direction for Gentoo. We are working on it, we really are. In the > meantime, we saying that the buck stops here, because right now, > Gentoo is being seriously damaged as a distribution. I didn't mean to suggest that the buck didn't stop w/ the Council, or that the Council wasn't admirably working to set a direction for Gentoo. My apologies for appearing to imply either of those things. I simply think you folks are rushing things more than is really necessary. Take a look at yesterday's threads started by Mr. Long. He was stirring up trouble, and he was not terribly successful because, after a bit of latency, people refused to play along. That's a positive change that I suspect occurred at least in part _because_ the Council is leading here. I think the Council is already making a difference, and that there's time to come up with something beautiful instead of just functional. > > * Having a group of folks separate from devrel who would be doing > > similar things to what devrel does (when devrel isn't involved in > > recruiting) somehow seems a bit silly. I'd much rather we just broaden > > that part of Developer Relations to Community Relations. > I'd to quote from Christel's mail here: > "2. The Proctors is not a new name for Devrel. They would fall under > Devrel territory, but as a newly formed group under the leadership and > supervision of the Council. A decision as to numbers and electing > proctors has not yet been reached -- we are working out these details as > we speak. *Grin* I actually did read Christel's e-mail. I disagree with that part. > (My suggestion here is to select a group of people from a wide > variety of backgrounds within Gentoo, taking care to avoid 'old boys > clubs' and cliques)" > > Simply renaming devrel to commrel and handing them the task won't > solve anything - there will still be complaints that devrel is being > unfair (and is indeed why your Ombuds position exists). As the > council, we will require of the Proctors that they are impartial and > fair. Here's my problem with it: essentially what you're arguing for the proctors to be is the same as what devrel should be (at least for the part of devrel that is supposed to be looking after community standards). If you're creating a new group because of distrust of devrel, then it makes more sense to either fix devrel (assuming it needs fixing), or disband that part, or put your trust in devrel's current incarnation. (My personal view is that we've had a nearly complete turnover in devrel multiple times since the last set of significant problems, so people should give them a chance, but I realize it's not my call to make.) In any event, the fact that devrel/proctor/whatever decisions can be appealed to the council actually does makes claims of bias less tenable. > > * Ubuntu requires that their devs sign a copy of their code of conduct. > > (I assume an electronic signature suffices?) Would that be a good > > idea for us to do something similar? I don't really have a strong > > feeling one way or another. > How do we enforce this on users (both those that were never developers > as well as those that were ex-developers) fairly then? > I see equal enforcement as a benefit here. One might argue that devs should be held to a slightly higher standard than the users. My understanding is that w/ Ubuntu the devs sign the code because they are the standard bearers of the distribution. Their views are going to hold more weight in the community because of that ubuntu.org e-mail address, and by signing the code they provide a good example for the users. The users are expected to play by the same rules, but of course they don't have to sign anything; it's implicit by signing up on a mailing list (or forum, or whatever). *Shrug* I don't really have a strong opinion about this last item. I'm just trying to offer things to think about. Well, that was far too long. *Sigh* Time for me to let others speak, I think. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgp1psukatzyQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
