2014-11-18 11:36 UTC−07:00, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Anne Schilling <a...@math.ucdavis.edu> > wrote: >> On 11/18/14 7:55 AM, Harald Schilly wrote: >>> >>> On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:26:18 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote: >>> >>> What if instead of a "code of conduct" there was a "community >>> expectations" SHORT document that just say what we expect? >>> >>> >>> I'm a little bit late to this thread, but I've read all the mails. This >>> "expectations" document sounds interesting to me, whereas I'm a bit >>> hesitant to this "code of conduct" thing. In my eyes, it is >>> stating a lot of obvious things, and doesn't solve immediate problems. I >>> agree that it could be abused in some way, just because it exists and >>> hence it is a leverage point. e.g. phrases like "poor >>> behavior" are a bit hollow for me. (*) >> >> Saying that discussions that get out of hand can be relegated to >> sage-flame is, I think, important. >> For example, I did not know that we could do that until very recently. >> Stating explicitly how this can >> be done might be good. >> >>> We should not forget, that most of us here (as mathematicians & >>> researchers in general) are trained to be (a) very picky and (b) >>> long-term persistent. Those ingredients do not help if a discussion >>> derails into lengthy substitution-arguments to just make a point in a >>> time-consuming thread. What would actually help in such situations is to >>> step back and look at the bigger picture. Maybe there >>> should be an intervention team of "senior" community people to sort this >>> out: e.g. just posting "DRAMA MODE" as a signal for everyone to stop it? >>> But who are those and how do they gain authority? >> >> One problem with this is that the intervention team might not be reading >> all threads. >> So having a way to say where there is a problem might still be useful. >> I agree deciding who the intervention team is is an important question. >> Probably William >> would be a good choice. > > Here is I think a concrete, apolitical proposal. > > Given the potentially political nature of such a choice, one > possibility is to do something apolitical, and select based on > ownership. In particular, based on lines of code contributed to Sage, > which is an (imperfect!) but non-politicial measure of how much > ownership people have in Sage (with legal value, since people do not > contribute their copyright). By this definition: > > > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/graphs/contributors?from=2006-02-05&to=2014-11-18&type=a > > the top 12 all time list of contributors to Sage, in order, are: > > - William Stein > [SNIP] > > We could: > > 1. Create a private mailing list called sage-abuse with these people > as members. > > 2. Make a clear statement on the sagemath.org website, etc., that if > people think a thread should be on sage-flame, send a message to the > sage-abuse list. > > 3. The sage-abuse list members will have a quick discussion and if > what to do isn't clear, they will vote (which means a quick on-list > vote that must be completed within one day). If a majority votes to > move the discussion should move to sage-flame, they ensure it moves. > > For now, the sage-abuse group would have exactly one duty, which is to > ensure that discussions get moved to sage-flame when requested. > That's it. We would give this a try for 6 months, and only then > revisit whether the group should expand its duties or be dissolved.
Having a committee in charge of the repression looks more than suspicious to me. Why would you exclude people from those important decision ? Why do not make the discussion public ? Isn't sage-devel good enough for that ? Moreover, it would be nice to point precisely the thread/tickets where problems occurred. On the other hand, for what William called a "non-political choice" of the committee, if you look at the period 2012-2014 which reflects more who is *involved* in Sage, the top list is not at all the same. I hope that you agree that Sage "belongs" to who use it and not to who create it. Vincent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
