-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
<snip various good infos> > The Code of Conduct was written with the hopes that its existence would > help to curb the flamewars and other general nastiness between people > within the community. The proctors were created to enforce the Code of > Conduct. Their mandate was to be very fast moving and to try to keep > flames from spreading. For some time, I was working with the proctors. > I ended up disliking the bureaucratic direction they were taking and > chose to have myself removed from the group. Since that time, I have > pretty much felt that the proctors *have* taken it upon themselves to > single out and target particular individuals. Whether this was > intentional or not is really beside the point. The perception is all > that really matters, as it is all that gets propagated to the world. I > think this is something that people seem to forget. It doesn't matter > what the real truth is for anything. All that matters "to the world" is > what they perceive. If the perception is that Gentoo is nothing but a > bunch of guys waiting to flame people, it doesn't matter that there > might be 98% of the developer pool that has never engaged in a flamewar. > (Numbers completely made up...) > Not everyone had your perception either - in fact, it would appear that a lot of people have the same perception as me, which is that Neddy saw the potential of this thread to do exactly what has happened, and asked for people to NOT post for 24 hours. Certain individuals decided to respond anyways due to that being their nature, and they got banned. Suddenly because those people have a tendency to do this "proctors are out to get them" - perpetrated by the fact that it is them doing the same thing time and again, it is *NOT* singling anyone out, it is simply responding and attempting to curtail their efforts yet again. So while you have a certain perception - which appears to be the same as the ones the CoC was used against, whether that is good or bad, I have no idea - doesn't mean that *everyone* has your perception. >> While preventing it is a good goal in itself, writing a CoC based on an >> actual case which has only recently occurred, usually leads to this >> result and damages the whatever good intentions were involved because >> other people will see the similarities as well. > > The Code of Conduct wasn't written in response to a particular case. > The timing suggests that it was written against Ciaran. It wasn't. I > know this will sound a bit harsh, but if we really were trying to just > get rid of Ciaran, we would have just banned him and been done with it. > There wouldn't have been a point in creating yet another project and > staffing it. The goal *was* and still *is* to reduce the flames, no > matter what parties are involved. > >> More than that, it puts a strain on those who are entrusted with enforcing >> the CoC because they will try, with the best motives, to prevent anything >> like that happening again. And they will do it, as the proctors stated >> themselves, pro-actively. > > No, re-actively. If it were proactive, it would be done before the > flames started. The proctors *have* tried to react as quickly as > possible. The problem is that there are no published guidelines, and > decisions from the proctors are completely arbitrary to any outside > observer. I think they've failed. Again, I don't think that the guys > didn't have the best intentions, and I know that some people took my > voicing of their failure as a direct personal assault. It wasn't meant > that way, but I'm not going to apologize for my observations. I see no > point in apologizing for what *I* perceived, even if it does hurt a few > feelings. I just think people are being overly-sensitive. It's > Gentoo's curse. > Overly sensitive? Perhaps you should go re-read your email. And yes, I do believe an apology IS in order. Of course, my beliefs mean nothing, I am a lowly developer, you are a high and mighty council member who is above reproach for your actions. >> The problem is, though: In an asynchronous communications medium, you >> simply cannot pro-actively do anything without bordering on what some >> like to call censorship. You can only *re*act in such a situation. >> >> Even *trying* to act pro-actively will lead to unrest as we've only very >> recently seen it. If we accept my hypothesis of asynchronous >> communication and the implications I described, we come to the conclusion >> that reaction is the most likely way not to open Pandora's Box. > > Attempts to become more proactive were dismissed. One such attempt was > to enforce bans on all mediums. For example, if someone is banned for > 24 hours for their actions on IRC, they should be banned from all of our > media. Why? Because there's nothing keeping the person from just > moving "next door" and starting more problems. We've even seen it > happen in at least one occasion that I am aware of with this list and > the forums. > <more snippage of good informations> > I know I am planning on bringing up discussion on this at the next > Council meeting and we'll simply go from there. > Good to know that it will be discussed. Also, is there a place where we can go to request a council member be removed before their term is up? I do admit that I don't have the greatest of knowledge and due to how "young" I was as a developer during the last election, I didn't vote as I didn't know enough about any of the developers running, and I didn't pay particular attention to the mailing list. Now that I do, I am much better informed and will be voting accordingly. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGaAoA1c+EtXTHkJcRAmgeAJ4h9gEKjFdzu4Vtv9HKyE1E6Gk4/QCeOwPG qvxsbLTpB6Xtp7WBYmBrUaw= =nx++ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
