GR proposal: code of conduct
Hi all, This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. This code of conduct has been drafted during debconf, and been refined during a BoF session there and in a discussion on the debian-project mailinglist. For more details, please see 52790de1.20...@debian.org There has been a delay since the thread on -project; this was due to the fact that it was pointed out to me, in private, that before imposing some procedure on the listmasters, it *might* have been good to ask for their input, which indeed I had failed to do. I did send them an email in December, but have thus far not received a reply; and January has been busy for me, being involved in organizing FOSDEM *and* in a debconf bid. I went over the thread quickly just now because there were still a few outstanding issues; I think I incorporated all comments (interested parties can see diffs for my last few changes through http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/wouter/coc.git;a=history;f=coc.markdown). I did consider posting this to -project once more, but decided against i; I think the current draft is pretty close to consensus (if it hasn't already achieved that), and any further changes can easily be done through the normal GR procedure. I am therefore asking for seconds to this proposal, with apologies for the fact that this has taken far too long. GR text follows: == 1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. 2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct 3. Updates to this code of conduct should be made by the DPL or the DPL's delegates after consultation with the project, or by the Debian Developers as a whole through the general resolution procedure. 4. The initial text of the code of conduct follows, in markdown format. # Debian Code of Conduct ## Be respectful In a project the size of Debian, inevitably there will be people with whom you may disagree, or find it difficult to cooperate. Accept that, but even so, remain respectful. Disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour or personal attacks, and a community in which people feel threatened is not a healthy community. ## Assume good faith Debian Contributors have many ways of reaching our common goal of a [free](http://www.debian.org/intro/free) operating system which may differ from your ways. Assume that other people are working towards this goal. Note that many of our Contributors are not native English speakers or may have different cultural backgrounds ## Be collaborative Debian is a large and complex project; there is always more to learn within Debian. It's good to ask for help when you need it. Similarly, offers for help should be seen in the context of our shared goal of improving Debian. When you make something for the benefit of the project, be willing to explain to others how it works, so that they can build on your work to make it even better. ## Try to be concise Keep in mind that what you write once will be read by hundreds of persons. Writing a short email means people can understand the conversation as efficiently as possible. When a long explanation is necessary, consider adding a summary. Try to bring new arguments to a conversation so that each mail adds something unique to the thread, keeping in mind that the rest of the thread still contains the other messages with arguments that have already been made. Try to stay on topic, especially in discussions that are already fairly large. ## Be open Most ways of communication used within Debian allow for public and private communication. As per paragraph three of the [social contract](http://www.debian.org/social_contract), you should preferably use public methods of communication for Debian-related messages, unless posting something sensitive. This applies to messages for help or Debian-related support, too; not only is a public support request much more likely to result in an answer to your question, it also makes sure that any inadvertent mistakes made by people answering your question will be more easily detected and corrected. ## In case of problems While this code of conduct should be adhered to by participants, we recognize that sometimes people may have a bad day, or be unaware of some of the guidelines in this code of conduct. When that happens, you may reply to them and point out this code of conduct. Such messages may be in public or in private, whatever is most appropriate. However, regardless of whether the message is public or not, it should still adhere to the relevant parts of this code of conduct; in particular, it should not be abusive or disrespectful. Assume good faith; it is more likely that participants are unaware of their bad behaviour than that they intentionally try to degrade the
Re: systemd bad press? score card?
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:42:14AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: I personally would defer to the Debian press team to decide whether they feel we should make a public statement at this time. I think we're still in the middle of our process, which I understand that a lot of people outside the project find baffling and protracted. I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to comment on that or not. Not really a press issue yet. Sam Varghese unfortunately didn't contact the press team over this opinion piece, and hasn't corrected factual errors in the article which have been pointed out in the comments below it. This does seem to be a pattern of his opinion pieces, but falls short of complaining to the editor. My personal professional experience is that ignoring the press unless you have something specific you want to say is a good default, but this is *far* from my area of expertise. Indeed, I'm not entirely sure what you'd like us to say - the process is ongoing, this isn't the end of it, or we finally have a decision. The truth is more complex than that, but doesn't make for a good press line. At the moment, I'd suggest just leaving it. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: systemd bad press? score card?
On 10/02/2014 17:26, Daniel Pocock wrote: http://www.itwire.com snip Not really objective journalism The byline alone is enough to deduce this. Let's not feed the trolls. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52fb6fe9.1060...@debian.org
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
- Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote: # Debian Code of Conduct ... ## In case of problems Serious or persistent offenders will be temporarily or permanently banned from communicating through Debian's systems. Complaints should be made (in private) to the administrators of the Debian communication forum in question. To find contact information for these administrators, please see [the page on Debian's organizational structure](http://www.debian.org/intro/organization) It seems to me that with the Code of Conduct (afterwords CoC) that we are institutionalizing a penal system in Debian. With that in mind, I think we should follow some of the best practices typical of these processes in other organizations. I also think some aspects of the CoC relate to obligations we have taken on in the Social Contract. It is well understood that secret laws and secret courts are not a desirable feature for any government. I feel that the same should hold true for our community. The procedures leading up to a ban, the evidence collected, the criteria the evidence must meet and the persons making the final decision should all be public record. I reference the Social Contract mandate to not hide problems in support of this concept. Please do not interpret this suggestion as an attack on the character of the listmasters or any other project member who donates their valuable personal time to make things happen. That is not the intent. I have the highest level of respect for everyone who contributes to the project and they have my heartfelt thanks for the operating system I use every day. I feel we must see clearly that the CoC and its related ban punishment effectively amounts to a nascent court system for the project. Bans have been treated as an embarrassing thing that we want to keep out of the public eye but they constitute a very serious punishment. A comprehensive ban is effectively a death sentence for its target because, from the perspective of the project, that person will cease to exist. This may seem strong language but some members of the project feel a great deal of passion for the effort and would regard an eviction as catastrophic. I hope many of you will agree that while the CoC may be a necessary feature for our community it should be governed in a transparent, policy-driven and unbiased manner with detailed record keeping and peer review. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/24545501.20871392227105291.javamail.r...@newmail.brainfood.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 11:45 -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote: It is well understood that secret laws and secret courts are not a desirable feature for any government. I feel that the same should hold true for our community. The procedures leading up to a ban, the evidence collected, the criteria the evidence must meet and the persons making the final decision should all be public record. I reference the Social Contract mandate to not hide problems in support of this concept. Hi ALL, I Fully support this proposal and especially the above section. I think the GR should include something in this sense. Cheers; signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 11:59 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: [...] ## Assume good faith Debian Contributors have many ways of reaching our common goal of a [free](http://www.debian.org/intro/free) operating system which may differ from your ways. Assume that other people are working towards this goal. Note that many of our Contributors are not native English speakers or may have different cultural backgrounds ## Be collaborative [...] Is this last paragraph complete? It is at least missing a full stop and following blank line. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If more than one person is responsible for a bug, no one is at fault. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Ean Schuessler wrote: It is well understood that secret laws and secret courts are not a desirable feature for any government. I feel that the same should hold true for our community. The procedures leading up to a ban, the evidence collected, the criteria the evidence must meet and the persons making the final decision should all be public record. I reference the Social Contract mandate to not hide problems in support of this concept. The reason why listmaster@l.d.o and ow...@b.do do not disclose or discuss bans in public are because: 1) We wish to avoid negative connotations from someone being temporarily banned being attached to the person after they have rectified their behavior 2) In the case where some agent is clearly trolling or otherwise engaging in attention seeking behavior, posting publicly just adds additional indication of this behavior. That said, for owner@b.d.o, everything regarding a ban is sent to owner@b.d.o which is available to all DDs, and bans are announced to debian-priv...@lists.debian.org I hope many of you will agree that while the CoC may be a necessary feature for our community it should be governed in a transparent, policy-driven and unbiased manner with detailed record keeping and peer review. I don't believe too detailed of a procedure is going to be feasible without dramatically wasting listmaster@, owner@, IRC operators, and wiki admin's time. We certainly can publish bans on -private, and I'm OK with there being review after the fact if necessary, but I'm not personally going to waste my limited time with a burdensome bureaucratic procedure to actually put the ban in place in the first case. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p244 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140212194355.gs5...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:45:05AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote: I hope many of you will agree that while the CoC may be a necessary feature for our community it should be governed in a transparent, policy-driven and unbiased manner with detailed record keeping and peer review. I agree with your general reasoning here. For mailing list bans, I think it's pretty straightforward to implement a mechanism that is up to the accountability requirements you ask for: just publish bans, as requested / discussed in [1]. I don't think we need anything more than that. With public bans one can review the actions of listmasters, without having to force them to provide elaborate reasoning (which, as Don pointed out, would be too bureaucratic with very little benefit, IMHO). If enough people in the project are against a specific listmaster action, they can resort to the usual mechanisms (e.g. a GR) to override listamsters. I understand that there are drawbacks in public bans, as Don pointed out as well. But as I've argued in [2] I think the benefits for the community of publishing them outweigh the drawbacks. For IRC it's a bit more difficult, because we do not long our IRC channels by default (or at least I'm not aware we do), with the exception of meetings run with the help of meetbot. That means that it would be rather difficult for the moderators to point out to the evidence on the basis of which they've banned someone. I can't help wondering if the solution to this shouldn't just be radical, i.e. publicly log our IRC channels. A less invasive solution is to just ask moderators to publish log excerpts that they think justify the ban. [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/10/threads.html#00090 [2]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/10/msg00124.html [3]: http://meetbot.debian.net/ Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 06:25:12PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 11:59 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: [...] ## Assume good faith Debian Contributors have many ways of reaching our common goal of a [free](http://www.debian.org/intro/free) operating system which may differ from your ways. Assume that other people are working towards this goal. Note that many of our Contributors are not native English speakers or may have different cultural backgrounds ## Be collaborative [...] Is this last paragraph complete? It is at least missing a full stop and following blank line. It is, though it indeed misses a full stop there. The error was introduced in http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/wouter/coc.git;a=commitdiff;h=fa60ac6b67051bf10294f5b57f1e92188e9e05de;hp=a341fed0106959bdf6ed7292bf62ca56ffb3c9ef I've committed a change to my git repository to remedy that; I don't think this minor change needs me to restart the procedure, but further updates will contain the fixed text. -- This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today. -- http://xkcd.com/1133/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140212214734.gc16...@grep.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:45:05 Ean Schuessler wrote: - Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote: # Debian Code of Conduct ... ## In case of problems Serious or persistent offenders will be temporarily or permanently banned from communicating through Debian's systems. Complaints should be made (in private) to the administrators of the Debian communication forum in question. To find contact information for these administrators, please see [the page on Debian's organizational structure](http://www.debian.org/intro/organization) It seems to me that with the Code of Conduct (afterwords CoC) that we are institutionalizing a penal system in Debian. I believe this simply describes what /already/ exists in Debian and is done but which isn't spoken of much. [This was discussed previously in -project a few months ago.] As such I don't see any harm in pointing it out, as all it does is mention the process more openly. Pointing out the organizational structure is a good thing too, as it lists the resources available depending on the forum where help is needed. This Code-of-Conduct looks very reasonable to me; other than the minor punctuation/whitespace tweak needed that Ben Hutchings pointed out it looks good-to-go AFAICS. To Wouter and all those that helped with this -- good work! Thanks! :-) -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Master thesis on Free Software contributors - help needed
First of all I apologize if this is not the right place to ask, but to a newcomer all the Debian lists can be a bit confusing and I was not able to find a more relevant list. I am a master student at the IT University of Copenhagen and I am writing my final thesis on contributors to Free and Open Source Software. For that purpose I would like to do a survey among developers of one or two big Free/Open Source Software project(s) of which the Debian project would fit in great. So I need to find out if it would be possible to distribute a questionnaire among Debian developers and how this would be done best. In my project I try to cover who contributes to F/OSS, what motivates them and whether they share some underlying political values. I am among others very inspired by E. Gabriella Coleman who some of you might know since her research took place among Debian developers. Her project as well as other existing work was based on field work in limited settings so I would like to test some of their findings in a survey among a wider range of developers and compare that with findings from similar studies of motivations and values of other groups. That means I will need to control who is invited to the survey. Ideally I would send a questionnaire to every developer of the Debian project, but I guess this could easily be considered spam if it was not agreed upon with the project somehow. Could any of you help me on how and where to ask for permission to distribute such a questionnaire? Of course I would very much like to share any findings with the Debian project or give something back in any other way as a thank you for any help. Also as a thank you for making this great OS possible that I have also benefited from for many years :-) Kind regards Nikolai Gad
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Ean Schuessler writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): I feel we must see clearly that the CoC and its related ban punishment effectively amounts to a nascent court system for the project. I don't think that's the case and I don't want to see it that way. A comprehensive ban is effectively a death sentence for its target because, from the perspective of the project, that person will cease to exist. This isn't really true IMO. Someone who is banned can always send a message privately to a sympathetic contributor, who can forward it if it seems relevant or interesting. (I have in fact done this for a contributor who was under some kind of cloud, when they had a relevant and constructive contribution to make.) I think that this is a very important practical safety net. It also brings the possibility of a review. I hope many of you will agree that while the CoC may be a necessary feature for our community it should be governed in a transparent, policy-driven and unbiased manner with detailed record keeping and peer review. I disagree. I don't think that making these processes heavyweight is a good idea. I have had very poor experiences with policy-driven processes of this kind. I get the impression from your mail that you would vote against the CoC in its current form. That's your prerogative, of course. Do you intend to draft a counterproposal and if so how long do you expect that process to take ? The CoC in its current form has been extensively discussed on -project already, of course. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21243.64746.711225.309...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
- Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: This isn't really true IMO. Someone who is banned can always send a message privately to a sympathetic contributor, who can forward it if it seems relevant or interesting. (I have in fact done this for a contributor who was under some kind of cloud, when they had a relevant and constructive contribution to make.) I have seen this used in years past and its seems to underscore the second class status of the person involved rather than relieve it. This is, of course, my opinion. I disagree. I don't think that making these processes heavyweight is a good idea. I have had very poor experiences with policy-driven processes of this kind. I agree. No one likes red tape. I don't think basic record keeping has to be heavy weight. A ban is an infrequent event and is regarded seriously. A process just slightly less onerous than a kernel commit does not seem like too much to ask. I get the impression from your mail that you would vote against the CoC in its current form. That's your prerogative, of course. Do you intend to draft a counterproposal and if so how long do you expect that process to take ? The CoC in its current form has been extensively discussed on -project already, of course. I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not require a record keeping process. I actually agree with Steve that we should not be concerned about publicly advertising the bans. A ban should have been proceeded by a warning and should be reasonable and clear-cut given the circumstances. By the time a ban is issued it should have been fairly obvious that the recipient effectively signed on the dotted line for it. It does not seem unreasonable to me that if a developer is curious about why another developer was banned that they should be able to find out what messages provoked the ban, when a warning was issued, who implemented the ban and why (briefly) the band was warranted. This could be as simple as the listmaster forwarding a couple of signed messages to a procmail script. I would be willing to help modify the necessary scripts. The current procmail rules do not contain documentation about the messages that provoked the ban. Ironically it is currently easier to find out who has been banned than it is to find out why. ps. I will also be working on an automated sarcasm detector which may or may not be helpful in streamlining the ban workflow. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/13336517.22291392250726231.javamail.r...@newmail.brainfood.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not require a record keeping process. I actually agree with Steve that we should not be concerned about publicly advertising the bans. A ban should have been proceeded by a warning and should be reasonable and clear-cut given the circumstances. By the time a ban is issued it should have been fairly obvious that the recipient effectively signed on the dotted line for it. Personally, I would much rather just let the listmasters decide how to handle it. I certainly don't think a blanket requirement for a warning is necessary, and would much rather let someone make a judgement call. The person who started posting physical threats in response to the recent TC decision, and who had never participated in the project previously, didn't need a warning. The level of process should be proportional to the level of injury that could be caused by the action. We're talking about an action (temporary bans) that is considerably milder than a traffic ticket. We should pick a corresponding level of process. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87lhxfyhyv@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote: Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not require a record keeping process. I actually agree with Steve that we should not be concerned about publicly advertising the bans. A ban should have been proceeded by a warning and should be reasonable and clear-cut given the circumstances. By the time a ban is issued it should have been fairly obvious that the recipient effectively signed on the dotted line for it. Personally, I would much rather just let the listmasters decide how to handle it. I certainly don't think a blanket requirement for a warning is necessary, and would much rather let someone make a judgement call. The person who started posting physical threats in response to the recent TC decision, and who had never participated in the project previously, didn't need a warning. The CoC takes into account having a bad day, and instead specifically focuses on serious or persistent offenders. (i.e. one-time verbiage that isn't to be taken seriously is not what the CoC is about.) The level of process should be proportional to the level of injury that could be caused by the action. We're talking about an action (temporary bans) that is considerably milder than a traffic ticket. We should pick a corresponding level of process. To keep from repeating it, everything below is IMHO: The CoC isn't about process, but rather meant to encourage keeping communications civil and discouraging uncivil communication, along with stating some reasoning. It's intentionally short and simple. The specific process to use concerning consequences as well as the specific consequences are a related but separate matter. For the CoC it's enough to simply say that there are consequences and a hint about what could realistically be done. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us writes: On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote: Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not require a record keeping process. I actually agree with Steve that we should not be concerned about publicly advertising the bans. A ban should have been proceeded by a warning and should be reasonable and clear-cut given the circumstances. By the time a ban is issued it should have been fairly obvious that the recipient effectively signed on the dotted line for it. Personally, I would much rather just let the listmasters decide how to handle it. I certainly don't think a blanket requirement for a warning is necessary, and would much rather let someone make a judgement call. The person who started posting physical threats in response to the recent TC decision, and who had never participated in the project previously, didn't need a warning. The CoC takes into account having a bad day, and instead specifically focuses on serious or persistent offenders. (i.e. one-time verbiage that isn't to be taken seriously is not what the CoC is about.) Ack, sorry, I see that you took my reply as being about the CoC. I was intending to specifically address Ean's request that we have a more formal process with required warnings and record-keeping and so forth. I have no problems with the CoC as proposed. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87eh377eqk@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 21:39:47 Russ Allbery wrote: Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us writes: On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote: Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not require a record keeping process. I actually agree with Steve that we should not be concerned about publicly advertising the bans. A ban should have been proceeded by a warning and should be reasonable and clear-cut given the circumstances. By the time a ban is issued it should have been fairly obvious that the recipient effectively signed on the dotted line for it. Personally, I would much rather just let the listmasters decide how to handle it. I certainly don't think a blanket requirement for a warning is necessary, and would much rather let someone make a judgement call. The person who started posting physical threats in response to the recent TC decision, and who had never participated in the project previously, didn't need a warning. The CoC takes into account having a bad day, and instead specifically focuses on serious or persistent offenders. (i.e. one-time verbiage that isn't to be taken seriously is not what the CoC is about.) Ack, sorry, I see that you took my reply as being about the CoC. I was intending to specifically address Ean's request that we have a more formal process with required warnings and record-keeping and so forth. I have no problems with the CoC as proposed. Oh. ;-) Okay cool. Sorry for the confusion. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
