Re: Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Hi Scott, On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 09:58:16PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi all, This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. So I've put up a vote page with my current understanding at: https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_002 I've made some minor changes since the version that's there now. I intend to mail debian-devel-announce about this soon, so feedback about the current page is welcome. In regards to the In case of problems section:- ; will the person being banned be notified? AIUI, that is the case right now (and yes, I think it should be). Should this be mentioned in the code of conduct lest it be inferred that the process will be secret? I don't think the CoC should spell out procedure for listmasters (or administrators of any other communication medium, for that matter). The in case of problems section shows that we want to enforce this CoC, but it does not go into too much detail; that is, on purpose, left to listmasters' discretion. ; now that banning is being 'formalized' - will banning people mean the post for which they were banned will be published? There is usually no reason to publicly shame people who have been banned. The fact that we don't want people to misbehave on our lists shouldn't mean that we have to misbehave ourselves. As such, I don't expect a public list of bans. Having said that, given the above bit about procedure, there is nothing stopping listmasters from doing so if they think that is necessary. If not will the description of the lists be changed to reflect they will no longer be effectively unmoderated? I don't think that should happen. Banning someone from our mailinglists for misbehaviour is not the same thing as moderation. -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/20140321092946.gb22...@grep.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 06:31:13PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: While it's probably too late in this process to change what we're going to vote on, I just ran across this today, and it may be of general interest in the context of codes of conduct. http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/ So, I've read that, and I'm pretty much in disagreement with what they say. They advocate an approach of enumerating badness, which I don't think is a good idea. The main reason why it seems to do so is because the bad guys will otherwise start arguing with you about semantics. That may be a good way if there are a lot of avenues for the banned people to appeal their ban, but AIUI that just isn't the case in Debian. Someone who's banned from our mailinglists can complain to listmasters that the ban wasn't fair (and explain their case), or maybe appeal to the DPL if that didn't help, but that's about it. There is no hearing or anything of the sort, and since most bans are just for a few weeks anyway. More than that really isn't necessary IMO. As others have said, posting on our mailinglists is a privilege, not a right. If you abuse that privilege, we have the right to ban you from it, and there's no reason we should give abusers a lot of consideration. We should not ban for years on end by default, but then we're not doing that. As I'm sure you'll know, the downside of enumerating badness is that the enumeration will never be complete. Therefore, the suggested code of conduct deliberately tries to explain what you should do (in a positive sense), and is somewhat vague in what you shouldn't do, so as to leave room for reasonable interpretation. I think that's a far better approach than what's advocated in the above link. -- 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/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
While it's probably too late in this process to change what we're going to vote on, I just ran across this today, and it may be of general interest in the context of codes of conduct. http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/ -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/87lhw5psf2@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Note: I am not (yet) a developer and am therefore without franchise (voting rights) in the Debian community. On 3/20/14, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: While it's probably too late in this process to change what we're going to vote on, I just ran across this today, and it may be of general interest in the context of codes of conduct. http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/ I say it is on one hand better to grant the voting community time to read and research options for CoC, for the community (at least those with franchise - at the moment only debian developers) to debate that CoC, such that (entirely inadvertent, of course) mistakes and/or potential problems in our legislation (in this case Debian Policy) be avoided. On the other hand, such problems, and the consequences (quite possibly only to be seen some years into the future) might in fact be the ideal opportunity for members of the debian community (both those with and without franchise) to experience the consequences of ill thought out, or not properly explored/understood legislation. Good luck, Zenaan PS, some d-community-offtopic posts in addition: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/d-community-offtopic/2014-March/000489.html http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/d-community-offtopic/2014-March/000491.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsqbwahedvarypeblztmob7tmgapx4dtpo87xwnc8lr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi all, This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. So I've put up a vote page with my current understanding at: https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_002 I've made some minor changes since the version that's there now. I intend to mail debian-devel-announce about this soon, so feedback about the current page is welcome. In regards to the In case of problems section:- ; will the person being banned be notified? Should this be mentioned in the code of conduct lest it be inferred that the process will be secret? ; now that banning is being 'formalized' - will banning people mean the post for which they were banned will be published? If not will the description of the lists be changed to reflect they will no longer be effectively unmoderated? Kurt Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/531eec48.1090...@gmail.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Cyril Brulebois writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be (2014-03-06): As far as I can tell the problem is that you're not using MIME and the same problem people have when voting using non-ASCII characters. Conveniently published not so long ago: http://debian-administration.org/users/dkg/weblog/108 https://dkg.fifthhorseman.net/notes/inline-pgp-harmful/ I keep my key on a different machine to my mailreader. I'm not aware of any reasonable tools for supporting this kind of use. (NB I don't consider use the trusted machine as a signing oracle a good approach. I want to know what it is I'm signing.) Suggestions welcome. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21273.48756.200852.72...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi all, This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. So I've put up a vote page with my current understanding at: https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_002 I've made some minor changes since the version that's there now. I intend to mail debian-devel-announce about this soon, so feedback about the current page is welcome. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140307173343.ga5...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: == 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. So I've been wondering under which part of the constituion I should be putting all the options. Are they position statements? Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140307173741.gb5...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:33:44PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi all, This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. So I've put up a vote page with my current understanding at: https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_002 I've made some minor changes since the version that's there now. I intend to mail debian-devel-announce about this soon, so feedback about the current page is welcome. It seems lines from the initial text with # where missing, wml removed them. I've just commited the fix for that. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140307181313.ga7...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
[Jonathan Dowland] I think the increasing importance of IRC for people to keep up to date on developments in Debian is a bad thing as it excludes people who cannot use IRC regularly enough (such as myself). Increasing importance? What has changed? I don't have the impression that IRC is any more central in Debian development than it was 10 years ago. People said the same of the Debian Planet blog aggregator a few years ago - that if you couldn't find the time and inclination to read everyone's blogs, you'd miss a lot of Debian development. I don't think that turned out to be true either. I think most people still understand lists.debian.org or it didn't happen. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140308002626.gb4...@p12n.org
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Peter Samuelson pet...@p12n.org writes: [Jonathan Dowland] I think the increasing importance of IRC for people to keep up to date on developments in Debian is a bad thing as it excludes people who cannot use IRC regularly enough (such as myself). Increasing importance? What has changed? I don't have the impression that IRC is any more central in Debian development than it was 10 years ago. Agreed. Other than specific meetings, I don't use IRC, and while I miss out on a lot of social interaction, I don't feel like my ability to participate in the project is particularly harmed by that. (I love you all, but I already have a huge problem with getting distracted by shiny discussions on the Internet rather than actually getting things done, so plugging into another giant source of shiny conversations with which I can distract myself seems like a bad move.) -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/87bnxhv7mr@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:37:41PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: == 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. So I've been wondering under which part of the constituion I should be putting all the options. Are they position statements? More like a nontechnical policy document. But that's also 4.1.5 ;-) -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/20140308012759.gb...@grep.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Wouter Verhelst writes (GR proposal: code of conduct): This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. I second this proposal. Ian. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJTGKtoAAoJEOPjOSNItQ05UEIIAL9LjyRbr6O489hzRxqdHHc9 UEjhnnarA1grjqsuFA+yGgn1KMzCg/aUXnpXfb9R34AQpsc074TdOmbej75v9eXp jyp2RnI8/H04YwVUeahKQsyJFHM0KOecV3Kzq+Gb0QIOrNCLdwPPO/8XI9rieEKj /xmw6ORRQFo5gc1aC3h+TMCX+lQd+OM3+OENsHCBz+U/fC9f/DQJrQRANpNufuLf o2Jy5WFJ3I/h63M/y3eLJkaGn29evfPry6elyZkiBWdSavyrv6J+Kf5ACQxhm7uv MTtjJJcZ7BZcjXZfYk+XNGy3kPsVDh1BF2xlIY1HPVf2Fg+rNEEKszr+ftbTeSs= =bBKw -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21272.43898.39859.513...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Wouter Verhelst writes (GR proposal: code of conduct): This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. I second this proposal. I think that's the 4th second. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140306173551.ga10...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Wouter Verhelst writes (GR proposal: code of conduct): This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. I second this proposal. I think that's the 4th second. I believe we've now reached five: https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/02/msg7.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00112.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00115.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00116.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00117.html Thanks, -- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio Ubuntu Developer https://launchpad.net/~andrewsomething Debian Developer http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=asb PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAL6k_Axa=czu0ydhwb6bffowg1ww-gm_drhyms+yqdrzeer...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:25:16PM -0500, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote: On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Wouter Verhelst writes (GR proposal: code of conduct): This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. I second this proposal. I think that's the 4th second. I believe we've now reached five: https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/02/msg7.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00112.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00115.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00116.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00117.html So I missed yours for some reason. I'll get started on the vote page. Wouter, are you going to accept Neil's amendment, or should I create 2 options? Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140306184802.ga12...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct):
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Wouter Verhelst writes (GR proposal: code of conduct):
This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution
to propose a Debian code of conduct.
I second this proposal.
I actually got a BAD signature on this.
I think it must have been charset-mangled. Wouter's message contained
some utf-8. My signed message has utf-8 in it since my software has
copied the octets verbatim.
Here is a uuencoded copy of the output I got from gnupg.
If you'd like to provide a uuencoded copy of what you got, we can try
to figure out what became of it.
Hmm. Looking at my original message in my MUA it says
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
which is not right. Perhaps your MUA has done a latin-1 to utf-8
encoding, meaning that your copy of the signed file is in a form of
WTF-8. If so then presumably if my message _had_ been in latin-1 with
codepoints above 128, it would have been mishandled in the same way ?
Ian.
begin 664 t.asc
M+2TM+2U14=)3B!01U`@4TE'3D5$($U%4U-!1T4M+2TM+0I(87-H.B!32$$R
M-38*E=O=71EB!697)H96QS=!WFET97,@*)'4B!PF]P;W-A;#H@8V]D
M92!O9B!C;VYD=6-T(BDZCX@5AIR!IR!T;R!PF]P;W-E($@9V5N97)A
M;!R97-O;'5T:6]N('5N95R(,*G-XQ+C4@;V8@=AE(-O;G-T:71U=EO
M;@H^('1O('!R;W!OV4@82!$96)I86X@8V]D92!O9B!C;VYD=6-T+@H*22!S
M96-O;F0@=AIR!PF]P;W-A;X*DEA;BX*+2TM+2U14=)3B!01U`@4TE'
M3D%455)%+2TM+2T*5F5RVEO;CH@1VYU4$@=C$N-XQ,B`H1TY5+TQI;G5X
M*0H*:5%%8T)!14)#04%'0E%*5$=+=]!06]*14]0:D]33DET43`U545)24%,
M.4QJ5)BC9/-#@Y:'I2'%D2$AC.0I516IH;FYAD$Q9W)J7-U1D$K4=G
M;C%+37I#9R]A55AN%AF8CE2,S1!47!S8S`W-%1D3VUB96HW-78Y95APFIY
M#)2;DDX+T@P-%EW5E5E86A+47-Y2D9(33!+3V5C5C-+G$K1V(P44E/DY#
M31W4%!/+SA823ER:65%2VH*+WAM=S9/4E)11F\U9V,Q84,S:M434-8*VQ1
M9M/33,K3T5.TA#0GHK52]F0SEF+T112G)14D%.$YU9G5,9@IO,DIY-5=
M2C-)+V@V,TTO3-E3$IK84=N,CEE=F90GDV96QY6FMI0E=D4V%V7)V-DHK
M2V8U04-1AM-W5VDU4=I*2F-:-T):8VI86F99:RM83D=Y,VM0U9$:#%
M1C)X;$E9,4A05F8R1FKDY%14MSG(K9G1B553ST*/6)2W*+2TM+2U%
63D0@4$=0(%-)1TY!5%5212TM+2TM@``
`
end
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21272.51197.672239.918...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Wouter Verhelst writes (GR proposal: code of conduct): This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. I second this proposal. I actually got a BAD signature on this. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140306190310.ga13...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 07:09:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Wouter Verhelst writes (GR proposal: code of conduct): This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. I second this proposal. I actually got a BAD signature on this. I think it must have been charset-mangled. Wouter's message contained some utf-8. My signed message has utf-8 in it since my software has copied the octets verbatim. Here is a uuencoded copy of the output I got from gnupg. I can at least very the signature with that, and have to agree it's some kind of mangeling gone wrong somewhere. Hmm. Looking at my original message in my MUA it says Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 which is not right. Perhaps your MUA has done a latin-1 to utf-8 encoding, meaning that your copy of the signed file is in a form of WTF-8. If so then presumably if my message _had_ been in latin-1 with codepoints above 128, it would have been mishandled in the same way ? As far as I can tell the problem is that you're not using MIME and the same problem people have when voting using non-ASCII characters. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140306192616.gb13...@roeckx.be
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Op dinsdag 25 februari 2014 19:02:49 schreef Lars Wirzenius: I would prefer a culture where IRC discussions are ephemeral, and any useful information should end up in debian/changelog, mailing lists, git commit messages, wiki.debian.org, or any of the other places where we already put information. Which, I think, is the status quo (except in cases where meetbot is used, but then logs *are* available and good use of meetbot makes them readable) -- 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/
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:28:39PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: Personally I think it would bring some much needed transparency to what is becoming one of the more essential Debian communication channels to be on. Just like we archive mailing lists and record DebConf talks/BoFs, we should publicly log IRC channels. I think the increasing importance of IRC for people to keep up to date on developments in Debian is a bad thing as it excludes people who cannot use IRC regularly enough (such as myself). The sheer volume of unedited logs will be too much for anyone to realistically digest. Doing so would just support the idea if IRC as being essential and further marginalise people who don't use it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140301113748.ga8...@bryant.redmars.org
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 10:49:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Op dinsdag 25 februari 2014 19:02:49 schreef Lars Wirzenius: I would prefer a culture where IRC discussions are ephemeral, and any useful information should end up in debian/changelog, mailing lists, git commit messages, wiki.debian.org, or any of the other places where we already put information. Which, I think, is the status quo (except in cases where meetbot is used, but then logs *are* available and good use of meetbot makes them readable) I believe there are Debian sub-communities (and communities of other F/OSS projects) where IRC has become de-facto essential to participate which excludes people who lack the free time to use it effectively. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140301114011.gb8...@bryant.redmars.org
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: I think the increasing importance of IRC for people to keep up to date on developments in Debian is a bad thing as it excludes people who cannot use IRC regularly enough (such as myself). The sheer volume of unedited logs will be too much for anyone to realistically digest. Doing so would just support the idea if IRC as being essential and further marginalise people who don't use it. The only channels I find have lots of backlog are #debian-devel, #debian-mentors, #debian-release, #debconf-team and sometimes #debian-admin. The first one includes a bit of off-topic chatter. The first two are non-essential and the rest are pretty team specific. For the others I think most people could probably easily keep up. I've been wishing I had time to organise people to do a this week on IRC section in DPN, probably hard to find some people though. Anyway, point taken, there is a lot of volume on IRC. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6EkKBe0g+DV1Pgr2020MRCM+2yVfO9xgu7=ysdfvj6...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Op zaterdag 1 maart 2014 11:40:11 schreef Jonathan Dowland: On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 10:49:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Op dinsdag 25 februari 2014 19:02:49 schreef Lars Wirzenius: I would prefer a culture where IRC discussions are ephemeral, and any useful information should end up in debian/changelog, mailing lists, git commit messages, wiki.debian.org, or any of the other places where we already put information. Which, I think, is the status quo (except in cases where meetbot is used, but then logs *are* available and good use of meetbot makes them readable) I believe there are Debian sub-communities (and communities of other F/OSS projects) where IRC has become de-facto essential to participate which excludes people who lack the free time to use it effectively. Well, then I think that is a mistake, and one that should be rectified. Having said that, however, that's not entirely relevant for the code of conduct. -- 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/
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote: - Wrap your lines at 80 characters or less for ordinary discussion. Lines longer than 80 characters are acceptable for computer-generated output (e.g., ls -l). - Do not send automated out-of-office or vacation messages. - Do not send test messages to determine whether your mail client is working. - Do not send subscription or unsubscription requests to the list address itself; use the respective -request address instead. - Never send your messages in HTML; use plain text instead. - Avoid sending large attachments. While I agree that these are useful suggestions (and that therefore they probably should be retained), these sound more like technical guidelines; I don't think a code of _conduct_ should contain technical explanations on how to configure your mail client. So I would suggest that for these things, we create something else (not a code of conduct) that is maintained by you, our listmasters. The (proposed) code of conduct could obviously refer to it from the further reading section, if that seems appropriate. Does that make sense? IMO yes. The code of conduct could link to a Best practices on Debian mailing lists document that the listmasters would maintain. - When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be copied. Well, heh. On that one, I think the current code of conduct is a mistake, because most mail clients make it very hard to do that. +1, I'm also in favor of dropping that requirement. Contributing to Debian lists imply some willingness to interact with people and you should not be much bothered by a CC. If you are, then you can most likely filter out duplicates with procmail. I appreciate getting a CC because I see replies to my mails earlier that way. The downside is that people who can't avoid replying within 5 minutes to every mails they get might quickly generate a noisy thread of 10 mails in a few hours without leaving the time to others to participate in the thread and have a healthier thread. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140227111705.gc23...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Op woensdag 26 februari 2014 15:25:25 schreef u: On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi, *snip* - the CoC, can only be an extension to our (lists.d.o) Coc [1], as there are missing the mail/list specific parts. Hm. The whole point of this exercise was to replace that code of conduct with a more generic and up-to-date one, so if you feel that this isn't good enough, then that's a bug. Can you be more specific about the bits that you think should not be removed from the current mailinglist coc? Your goals are honorable, but I am not sure if this possible. Let me see: I have some example that I don't want to lose, but most are for example not suitable for IRC: - Do not send spam; see the advertising policy below. (the advertising policy is the interesting part) Right, that one. I'm not sure this belongs in a code of conduct, for the same reason that we shouldn't publish bans for trolls or spammers. A code of conduct should be about conduct, i.e., social behaviour, not about don't be a pest. That doesn't mean we should not have a do not spam policy, nor that we cannot publish such a policy; just that I don't think it should be part of a code of _conduct_. In addition, personally I am not convinced that this part of the current code of conduct is very efficient in fighting spam, but then I am not in your shoes. Do you believe otherwise? If so, can you clarify? - Send all of your e-mails in English. Only use other languages on mailing lists where that is explicitly allowed (e.g. French on debian-user-french). A clause like Please use the appropriate language for the medium you are using. In Debian, this is usually English, but there are exceptions (e.g. use French on the debian-user-french mailinglist, or Dutch on the #debian-nl IRC channel). could work. Having said that, I should note that my very first draft[1] did still contain this clause (or a similar one, at least); I'm not sure anymore why it was removed. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/05/msg00060.html - Make sure that you are using the proper list. In particular, don't send user-related questions to developer-related mailing lists. Some of our communication channels have topic-specific subdivisions; please use the appropriate one for your topic, possibly with an example? - Wrap your lines at 80 characters or less for ordinary discussion. Lines longer than 80 characters are acceptable for computer-generated output (e.g., ls -l). - Do not send automated out-of-office or vacation messages. - Do not send test messages to determine whether your mail client is working. - Do not send subscription or unsubscription requests to the list address itself; use the respective -request address instead. - Never send your messages in HTML; use plain text instead. - Avoid sending large attachments. While I agree that these are useful suggestions (and that therefore they probably should be retained), these sound more like technical guidelines; I don't think a code of _conduct_ should contain technical explanations on how to configure your mail client. So I would suggest that for these things, we create something else (not a code of conduct) that is maintained by you, our listmasters. The (proposed) code of conduct could obviously refer to it from the further reading section, if that seems appropriate. Does that make sense? Additionally, the bits about large attachments and HTML sound like things that could more easily be done by a filter. If we don't want large attachments, we should make it technically impossible for people to send them (while making sure that those who try will get an informative bounce message). - Do not quote messages that were sent to you by other people in private mail, unless agreed beforehand. I believe such a clause was originally part of the Be open item in my draft, but it got edited out. We could add it back, of course... - When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be copied. Well, heh. On that one, I think the current code of conduct is a mistake, because most mail clients make it very hard to do that. Yes, some mail clients do have a list reply option, but some will only send the reply to the mailinglist on which the person replying received the mail in question; any cross-posted mailinglists will be dropped, which is not always the right thing to do. Yes, one can edit the list of recipients and remove non-list recipients, but then those recipients who explicitly asked to be Cc'd somewhere up the thread will not receive those requested copies. I think we should default to what tools make easy, not to the option which requires manual work. I understand that this is the current policy, and if there is a strong feeling that we should retain it, I won't oppose keeping it. But my personal opinion is that it
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Op woensdag 26 februari 2014 15:25:25 schreef Alexander Wirt: - When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be copied. Well, heh. ... I think we should default to what tools make easy, not to the option which requires manual work. The tools will never be able to do the right thing because the right thing is highly context dependent. On Debian lists it is convention to not CC unless there is some indicator that you should. On LKML not CCing widely is discouraged. Each community has their own rules and there are too many tools for all of them to ever be able to know about these differences. I understand that this is the current policy, and if there is a strong feeling that we should retain it, I won't oppose keeping it. But my personal opinion is that it should go. I'd prefer that it didn't change. If it did I'd have to figure out how to use nore...@debian.org in From, unsubscribe from the lists or get a completely new client and mail setup. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6GpE=pTt5cuFEKV=vys+nbj8hifosrhhpfgbsgqkfs...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On 2014-02-24, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: I don't think this is realistic for channels which anyone in the world can join. There are no doubt many people who have private logs and there would be nothing stopping anyone making such a log public without our consent. This is true for any electronic communication. People will probablybe asked to leave the forum if they insist on making logs public. And by asked, I mean forced. Is it really the case that making the logs available as public text files produces too much search engine exposure etc. (which is I guess the real concern) ? Yes. Would you want your chatter in the pub with friends recorded and published? /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lehm34$e08$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 05:00:07PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: 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. ... i.e. publicly log our IRC channels. That would be nice, the IRC channels are currently a big back-channel that hides a bunch of useful information from the wider public. One could argue that if there is information that is so useful it should be available to the general public then it should be manually polished up and published in designated places (documentation). -- WBR, wRAR -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140225093420.ga21...@belkar.wrar.name
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Hi, Andrey Rahmatullin: One could argue that if there is information that is so useful it should be available to the general public then it should be manually polished up and published in designated places (documentation). One could argue that the information / documentation is already readily available at mulitple places, but the person who asks in the channel is too inexperienced / lazy / stupid ^w clueless to actually find it. We all have been guilty of all three of these, at one time or another. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: Is it really the case that making the logs available as public text files produces too much search engine exposure etc. (which is I guess the real concern) ? Several of our derivatives (at least Maemo, Ubuntu) have public logs of their IRC channels. Personally I think it would bring some much needed transparency to what is becoming one of the more essential Debian communication channels to be on. Just like we archive mailing lists and record DebConf talks/BoFs, we should publicly log IRC channels. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caktje6forwltdpj7z-wtzfarxqox0ojz7628kbwhqnwuqo3...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:28:39PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: Is it really the case that making the logs available as public text files produces too much search engine exposure etc. (which is I guess the real concern) ? Several of our derivatives (at least Maemo, Ubuntu) have public logs of their IRC channels. Personally I think it would bring some much needed transparency to what is becoming one of the more essential Debian communication channels to be on. Just like we archive mailing lists and record DebConf talks/BoFs, we should publicly log IRC channels. I am generally in favour of more transparency. Logging official project IRC channels would fit well with that. However, I find that it's very difficult to extract useful information from voluminous IRC logs, and official channels are likely to be voluminous. The logs are hard to read, and there's so much irrelevant discussion mixed with the parts that one is looking for that it is much harder to find what one wants. IRC has no threading, so finding the related parts of a discussion is not easy. This is a stark contrast with, say, mailing lists. Thus I suspect that the logs won't be very useful. I would prefer a culture where IRC discussions are ephemeral, and any useful information should end up in debian/changelog, mailing lists, git commit messages, wiki.debian.org, or any of the other places where we already put information. -- http://www.cafepress.com/trunktees -- geeky funny T-shirts http://gtdfh.branchable.com/ -- GTD for hackers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140225190249.GF4722@holywood
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Hi, Lars Wirzenius: I would prefer a culture where IRC discussions are ephemeral, and any useful information should end up in debian/changelog, mailing lists, git commit messages, wiki.debian.org, or any of the other places where we already put information. I agree. The second problem I have with IRC logs is that Google is likely to show them if you search for the solution to some problem, partticularly if that problem is asked about often. However, I suspect that most users would extracting a solution from IRC logs, assuming it is buried in there at all, to be very tedious. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140225200136.ga24...@smurf.noris.de
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Lars Wirzenius wrote: Thus I suspect that the logs won't be very useful. Due to Debian being focussed in the European timezones, most of my use of IRC is reading backlog, which is pretty much the same has reading public logs. I still find IRC useful and even essential to be reading. I've also found the public IRC logs of other distributions useful in the past when I wanted to find out what was going on. I've also extracted useful information from public IRC logs I found via search engines. useful information should end up in debian/changelog, mailing lists, git commit messages, wiki.debian.org, or any of the other places where we already put information. I don't think that is happening right now. It might be possible to do this but I expect any effort to do so will end like the debian-private declassification GR; with no-one to doing it. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6ER8Nvx2s++4DrdT7cRJWH3hNFmTn3sSV=nz0g7dtr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: 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. ... i.e. publicly log our IRC channels. That would be nice, the IRC channels are currently a big back-channel that hides a bunch of useful information from the wider public. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/caktje6g7vteheceuqw6oa+jxvdqnh8rjfwzm57ykncgctpa...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On 2014-02-24, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: That would be nice, the IRC channels are currently a big back-channel that hides a bunch of useful information from the wider public. Much of irc are semiprivate chatter and socializing and not really something that should be available to the wider public. It is true that occasionally there is some useful information that the rest of the world could gain some technical knowledge from. It is also true that there is some information around that gives the world more knowledge about interactions between developers. But the latter part isn't actually meant for big public consumptions. In the socializing part could be people showing a picture of their kid to their debian friends. In the technical bit, there could be 'how to recover from broken RAID's'. In the last bit could be developers discussing wether or not to act when project members seems to have lost it. Given all of it happens in the 'same mess' and can't easily be separated, and two thirds of it shouldn't really be published, I think that public logging is a bad idea. /Sune -- 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/leficq$cs6$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Sune Vuorela writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): Much of irc are semiprivate chatter and socializing and not really something that should be available to the wider public. I don't think this is realistic for channels which anyone in the world can join. There are no doubt many people who have private logs and there would be nothing stopping anyone making such a log public without our consent. If we objected we would have to engage in ridiculous and easily-defeated forensics (and perhaps disruptive interventions) to try to discover who the leaker was. Is it really the case that making the logs available as public text files produces too much search engine exposure etc. (which is I guess the real concern) ? 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/21259.35071.771629.665...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: Sune Vuorela writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): Much of irc are semiprivate chatter and socializing and not really something that should be available to the wider public. I don't think this is realistic for channels which anyone in the world can join. There are no doubt many people who have private logs and there would be nothing stopping anyone making such a log public without our consent. If we objected we would have to engage in ridiculous and easily-defeated forensics (and perhaps disruptive interventions) to try to discover who the leaker was. Is it really the case that making the logs available as public text files produces too much search engine exposure etc. (which is I guess the real concern) ? Ian. I think we might be overthinking IRC bans. In my mind, IRC bans aren't a big deal, as even a faultily configured IRC client can (rightfully) trigger these bans. It's also fairly obvious to others in the channel why bans are instituted. Also, since IRC bans don't trigger a project-wide ban from mailing lists, bugtracker, etc, I don't believe we really have to worry about instituting new IRC based tracking processes. IE: IRC is a sometimes flaky, informal transient/dynamic communications medium, if it breaks or someone is banned for having a faulty client, they can always fall back to email or other more formal communications methods.. Thanks, Brian P.S. - I sidestepped the question about publicly logging IRC channels as I have mixed feelings on the topic, and don't feel it's required to agree to the CoC and implement it. -- 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/cacfairypzwf2ggqy+gp4mk-tlvbywav3ej_e_3r4t8wasta...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi - From the IRC perspective, we welcome the CoC -- it's nice to have a document to point people to which clearly articulates the sort of behaviour we want and the sort of environment we would like to maintain. A CoC is a great aspirational device and having the project support it sends a clear message. Let's not start making this into a massive bureaucratic nightmare for all of us though. We echo the concerns of Alexander Wirt on this. Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: 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. IRC bans are already public in that the mode change is public to anyone on the channel at the time and anyone on the server can inspect the ban list for a public channel. I assume that the above is written with the developer channels in mind, but let me state that as an op in the project's public facing channels (#debian, #debian-offtopic) I would strongly object to having an increased workload put on the ops of those channels. The ops there are already stretched [1] -- having to deal with crap in #debian isn't the most fun way of spending your time in the first place and adding a layer of bureaucracy to the process is just going to suck the life out of people. Looking through logs for the second half of last year, I find that there were almost 400 bans placed in #debian (oftc + freenode) and that all but a handful of them were made by 3 hard-working volunteers. Who is getting banned? In rough order: * spammers who want to crapflood the channel with race hate * other link spammers/scammers/jibberish bots * people who want support for windows, redhat, ubuntu, mint ... and refuse to actually ask in the right place where there is a dedicated channel with people to answer their questions * people with broken irc clients repeatedly joining then parting * people who want to rant about something offtopic, monopolise the channel by doing so and thus prevent anyone else from getting the support they are seeking. [2] How long are they banned? Usually a few minutes is enough to be able to talk to someone in private, to get them to cool down and be constructive again. If someone wants to set up some sort of paperwork scheme to track that sort of information, they are are welcome to do so -- just don't expect anyone to use it. They are welcome to idle in the channel and do the paperwork themselves if they feel it is worthwhile. [3] This is not to say that we want to do all this in secret and have no transparency. We frequently discuss bans in our ops channel with other ops, with network staff/opers and with people affected by them. More commonly, the op in question discusses bans directly with the person in question in a private message though as that's much more likely to de-escalate the situation. All ops are able to remove bans they disagree with. Time and people are routinely identified as the most important things Debian lacks; let's make sure our effort is spent productively. Stuart (with input from other #debian ops) [1] before anyone suggests this, let me pre-emptively say that parachuting new people in as extra ops doesn't work. New faces don't have the trust of the regulars so they are ineffective ops. This has been tried before and I don't believe there is one single active op left in #debian who was parachuted in. [2] it won't surprise anyone that ranting about gnome 3 or init systems is common enough... But #debian is a *support* channel; people there can only answer questions and help people report bugs where necessary. Anything beyond that becomes destructive to the channel and demoralising to the people volunteering to help in there. [3] yes, this is also an echo of other conversations we have had in the project recently -- if someone thinks something is important, they should step and do the work not require everyone else to bend to their wishes. - -- Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org GPG fingerprintBE65 FD1E F4EA 08F3 23D4 3C6D 9FE8 B8CD 71C5 D1A8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlL+GSEACgkQn+i4zXHF0aj0SACgz6NZzqwcnYoVjX1tL4KKUcKI MFQAni+911tKlnIsGHWwThbBsHtMSchg =KWae -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Stuart Prescott writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): - From the IRC perspective, we welcome the CoC -- it's nice to have a document to point people to which clearly articulates the sort of behaviour we want and the sort of environment we would like to maintain. A CoC is a great aspirational device and having the project support it sends a clear message. Thank you for your informative and thoughtful response, and for your support of the CoC. 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/21246.11007.279195.44...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:48:04PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: 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. Indeed, that's an issue - but I always have logs anyway. Proactively publishing bans on IRC may produce quite a bit of mail, as these tend to be more frequent than mailing list bans. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: 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. With my experience of the last weeks, I can just say: without me. I won't public those bans in the public, if someone else wants to do that: feel free, but please don't count on me. Alex pgpazEkv7zTu5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 02:25:17PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote: With my experience of the last weeks, I can just say: without me. I won't public those bans in the public, if someone else wants to do that: feel free, but please don't count on me. FWIW, please note that (at least for me): publishing != announcing. I think that bans should be made public --- as in: there exists a public web page where bans currently in effect are listed. It does not follow from that that listmasters should mail some public list each time that page is updated. In fact, I do think that sending announcements about new/changed bans is a bad idea, that it reinforces the drawbacks of publishing bans, and that it gives us nothing in terms of additional transparency. Imho it is not a good idea to publish those bans at all. Ideally, the maintenance of that page could be fully automated, on top of the tools you already use to manage bans. there are no tools. Alex pgpzrNSiPyDDV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Alexander Wirt wrote: On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 02:25:17PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote: With my experience of the last weeks, I can just say: without me. I won't public those bans in the public, if someone else wants to do that: feel free, but please don't count on me. FWIW, please note that (at least for me): publishing != announcing. I think that bans should be made public --- as in: there exists a public web page where bans currently in effect are listed. It does not follow from that that listmasters should mail some public list each time that page is updated. In fact, I do think that sending announcements about new/changed bans is a bad idea, that it reinforces the drawbacks of publishing bans, and that it gives us nothing in terms of additional transparency. Imho it is not a good idea to publish those bans at all. Agreed. It will serve no purpose but to put everyone at risk [of legal actions] and extra nuisances. We can have a private location with this data which only DDs can access for governance purposes, if required (and I *do not* think it is required at all). -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- 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/20140213162728.ga12...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
I'd be happy to sponsor a resolution that simply adopted the COC as a position statement of the day and asked the appropriate parties to take that as the project's current position. I think the DPL and listmasters can figure out where on the website to put it, and can figure out how to evolve it. If what we're trying to say is that today, her and now, this is what we believe, then let's just say that. So, my preference is to keep the COC inline and lose all the text about where it goes or how its updated. Just say it's our position statement at time of adoption. to me that explicitly lets existing normal processes evolve it. --Sam -- 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/01442c248729-332334d9-a029-49f3-b1cb-aaaf16abba2a-000...@email.amazonses.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Sam Hartman writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): I'd be happy to sponsor a resolution that simply adopted the COC as a position statement of the day and asked the appropriate parties to take that as the project's current position. I think the DPL and listmasters can figure out where on the website to put it, and can figure out how to evolve it. If what we're trying to say is that today, her and now, this is what we believe, then let's just say that. So, my preference is to keep the COC inline and lose all the text about where it goes or how its updated. Just say it's our position statement at time of adoption. to me that explicitly lets existing normal processes evolve it. At the very least it doesn't do so _explicitly_. You are really saying that it does so implicitly. I think it is better to be explicit. That will save us future argument if the DPL says they are amending the CoC and someone objects on the grounds that it ought to go through another GR. 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/21245.379.679178.633...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
- Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org wrote: Agreed. It will serve no purpose but to put everyone at risk [of legal actions] and extra nuisances. We can have a private location with this data which only DDs can access for governance purposes, if required (and I *do not* think it is required at all). I feel we are also at risk when there is a lack of policy and proper documentation. A ban, especially a long term ban on a DD, is a strong statement against the character of a person even when not advertised publicly. In the physical world, it is as if you barred someone from entering a clubhouse. Friends inside will wonder what the person did to deserve the treatment and potentially make up stories. People working with them may lose confidence in any effort they are collaborating on. It is not necessary to put a sign on the door that says So and so is not allowed even though that is obviously worse. If the policy for barring entry is understood by everyone in advance then participation in the club is effectively consent in the governing policy. This is still true for a policy of don't upset the list masters or they will throw you out but such a policy leaves a great deal of personal responsibility on the behavior police. To me, policy and documentation are a shield that decreases legal risk rather than increasing it. I'd hate to be a football referee if there were no rules. IANAL. I support the CoC GR. I accept the position that the GR represents a codification of status quo rather than the generation of new policy. I would love to see additional clarity around the rules and the record keeping because this policy (the CoC) is definitely going to cause hard feelings at some future date and I think clarity is a guard against that. Russ has expressed quite clearly how process protects us in prickly scenarios. I will vote for the CoC GR in its current form but with the reservations I've noted. I just wanted to get my opinion out there so that I can say I told you so when things go terribly wrong. Ha, ha. Just kidding. Still an acceptable email? Too much comedy? -- 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/3507416.22421392315930297.javamail.r...@newmail.brainfood.com
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: 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.
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.
