Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Hi List, The following mail has been written on Tuesday before alot of the recent discussions. It hasn't been changed except for three passages, which I left out (marked with [...]) which had no actual content, and don't make sense to be send to the list, but only to the actual addressee, who currently is unavailable. It is now mirrored here, to make sure it has a chance to be heared as input for the voting by the council, which will be soon today. Please note all of it is subjective of course, you might have a different point of view therefore. Additionally, please note English is _not_ my native language. Sorry for any inconvenience. - [...] Hiya all, As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml comments and suggestions both on- and off-list are appreciated. Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at 2100UTC. I would like to thank a few people for their help in getting it to this stage: the council for review, spb for translating Christelsk into English (with the help of the OED), nightmorph for making it look prettier than plain text in vim (without a fancy colourscheme), and marienz for being sane and reading it over. I'd also like to thank our Infrastructure team for working with us and answering questions regarding the mechanics of enforcing such a code. Christelx Hey, ahm - just read over it, and here is a list of things that i personally would change. [...] The majority is wording or slight changes only [...] I marked original versions with double quotes, those that I'd change without touching content with A and where i'd (mostly slightly only) change content with X. Notes are in brakets. Everything is in the order in which it appears in the current draft. X: I'd add a friendly note at the beginning, that everyone who has problems understanding the code can email xyz for help or ask #-userrel or so. A: Gentoo prides itself on being a community driven distribution. Everything we do is done with the best interest of the community at heart. [Simplifies language (It should be as easy to understand it as possible.), removes dublication of we do] X: We don't like making rules, but unfortunately with a community of this size it's necessary to have some ground rules firmly in place. [in order for us to keep doing what we have been doing. isnt this clear? If it should be kept in, i'd use a second sentence like 'This is to keep work going on smoothly.' or ', in order to keep work going on.', to keep doing what we have been doing sounds somewhat bumpy] A: We want these rules to be completely transparent, consistently enforced and followed. [avoids numbers within the text, removes the and dublication.] X: By empowering people, we try to protect as many community members as possible from being offended or otherwise unhappy with the community. [I tried for a more positive wording of the same by not directly stating that it wont work (perfectly) anyway, yet i lost the part of avoiding destructive behaviours or attitudes without intention, although this was said in the sentence before yet, so it can maybe be left out without real effects - i searched for a way not to leave it out, i just couldnt find a nice one] A: something is OK to post -- 'okay to post' [more formal] even better would be acceptable to comply with the headline and wording used later on. however, a mail that is okay is better than one thats only accepptable so one might as well stick to 'okay' for that purpose. it isn't, and -- 'it isn't and' [is a comma needed here? am unsure.] in any one thread. -- 'in this thread' or 'in the thread' A comment made in -- 'A comment written in' consequences that you -- 'consequences which you' X: Did you consider writing about the acceptable behaviour first? A: 'We do not take the decision to suspend or ban someone lightly [sounds better?] X: 'but sometimes it is neccessary.' or better 'however it is neccessary sometimes.' [ it would have to happen too, if you were sadists :-) no seriously, it reads better if something is needed, instead of having to happen in a way i cant quite explain ] A: removing Below is a list of things that could get your access suspended. shouldnt change a thing, since Things that could get you banned/suspended from [...] is still there. Please keep in mind that might be removeable too (not the
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 01:25, Grant Goodyear wrote: Ubuntu uses Community Council. I suggested Community Relations. *Shrug* Community Relations sounds fine to me. Here's my problem with it: essentially what you're arguing for the proctors to be is the same as what devrel should be (at least for the part of devrel that is supposed to be looking after community standards). If you're creating a new group because of distrust of devrel, then it makes more sense to either fix devrel (assuming it needs fixing), or disband that part, or put your trust in devrel's current incarnation. (My personal view is that we've had a nearly complete turnover in devrel multiple times since the last set of significant problems, so people should give them a chance, but I realize it's not my call to make.) In any event, the fact that devrel/proctor/whatever decisions can be appealed to the council actually does makes claims of bias less tenable. Yeah, that was my argument as well. I fear new rules are not going to change that. In my eyes the essential thing is that we have strong body (devrel/comrel/protctors) to encourage people to follow policy (wether new or old). Making devs live up to higher standards as a good example would also be encouraging to the process I think. -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) pgpJvtUKD2IFR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Vlastimil Babka wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Then why are there public archives? Note the subtle difference between receiving and reading in public archives. Some people may prefer their mail client. Disallowing someone from receiving mail from the list just to make it possibly a little bit more difficult to read the discussions, which I personally find not the case, does not really serve any purpose and is rather silly. If one who was banned from receiving mail from the list really wanted to view said mail, I highly doubt having to visit a mailing list archive would stop him from doing so. All in all, while public archives exist, disallowing people from receiving mail is quite useless and a waste of time. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:25:23 -0500 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] The previous doc had no moral weight, so to speak, because it was imposed on devs without any real discussion, and that's made it hard to enforce. Moreover, there's long been notable distrust of devrel, which historically made it hard for them to enforce it. My belief is that developer buy-in would make all of the difference in how effective a code of conduct would be. I think developer buy-in is absolutely _critical_ for this to work. Without it, the exercise will create more unnecessary ante between devrel and the rest of devs, and it'll be much less successful, even largely a waste of time. For the record, 3 calendar days for comment is a ridiculously small amount of time to achieve this. You could put something in place rapidly, if you want to be seen to be responding to the negative press in various quarters, but it must be on the explicit understanding that the CoC will be developed properly over a longer period of time. Short timescale notwithstanding, here are my comments on the document as a whole. I don't have time to be soft and fluffy over this, so forgive me if it comes across too strong. I agree firmly with Grant, that the doc should be positive in its wording throughout. I sent a critique of the old etiquette guide to devrel last week making exactly this point, however the new CoC still weighs in first with negatives and punishments. This is what happens when the document is drafted rapidly in response to, for want of a better phrase, a crisis in communications. The emphasis should on the positive and on empowerment, not on restriction and subjugation. For example, I'd start the document with something like (written previously as a suggestion for the etiquette guide): Developers are representatives of Gentoo; your behaviour as a developer reflects on Gentoo as a whole. These simple etiquette guidelines are here to help you to ensure your own behaviour is a positive asset to the Gentoo project. and I'd have statements like: Keep all your communications polite and focused on the technical discussion at hand. If a respondent is rude, obnoxious, offensive or annoys you in any way, choose to walk away rather than waste your time responding to it. As far as punishments are concerned, I wouldn't focus on specifics, but on the general aim: The elected proctors have overall responsibility for ensuring good standards of behaviour in all Gentoo fora (mailing lists, IRC, forums etc). They are tasked with taking appropriate action should problems arise. (could equally be 'proctors appointed by the elected council') Well, that's about all I can manage for now - don't expect a full critique in such a short timescale... -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Richard Brown wrote:
Respectfully, you're wrong. When you're writing a
policy document we do need to dissect every word.
I disagree with that. At least in my country, laws are written in a
flexible enough way to give judges the ability to interprete the law to
a certain extend, and it works just great. I don't see why we have to
dissect every word, especially since it makes it so easy to not to see
the wood for the trees. The goal of the CoC is fairly vague ('getting
along well'), so why is there a need to specify the way ulta-explicit?
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Hi. Wernfried Haas wrote: [snip] Please define access. Does that mean they get to ban people from the forums and all #gentoo-* channels? Do they get mod/op powers or just request it from the respective forum moderators / channel operators (who _have_ to follow their orders)? [snip] What exactly is Gentoo's official communication infrastructure? The mailinglists? _All_ IRC channels? So far #gentoo and #gentoo-dev are the only channels following some official policy, all others are ruled by whatever project/owner they have (afaik, correct me if wrong). Would a ban also affect all #gentoo-* channels and the forums? Posting on planet? What about gentoo developers calling people names in non-gentoo channels while wearing a gentoo cloak on irc or being otherwise easily identified as such (e.g. posting flames to debian mailing lists using @gentoo.org email)? [snip] Kind of answers my question, but i'm still asking for confirmation because i have a hard time believing it. Do the proctors get to overrule every team that moderates some communication channel already? [snip] Furthermore this raises an important question for me: So far, the forums moderators (as well as the ops in #gentoo) have enforced their policies. As long proctors and mods/ops are of the same opinion about a person, fine - but what about the following situations: - A developer misbehaves on the forums according to the forums staff and gets banned by them. So far, it has been our policy (not written, and hardly used every 2 years) to let devrel know about it in case they wanted to do something else about it. I guess it would make sense to continue that. What if the proctors disagree with the ban? - The proctors think someone is misbehaving on the forums and want him banned, while the forums staff think it is not ban worthy. What now [snip] I agree with all of the previous points raised by amne and am very interested on how do you propose the proctors, gentoo IRC channel ops, forum moderators and userrel work together. As it seems the proposal is for these guidelines to uphold in every Gentoo communication channel and project, they will affect the MLs, the IRC channels, the forums and projects like the userreps. I think that the rules need to take into account specifics of each communication channel - as an example I would recall the OTW forum, which is subject to a different set of guidelines in the forums. As amne asked before, will the proctors have overruling power over moderators for existing channels? If so, is the council suggesting that the proctors / devrel / council should control the forums moderation team and the IRC channel ops? As amne also asked, do you propose that teams work together or that proctors become forum moderators/admins and channel ops for all official IRC gentoo channels? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Hi. Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: Hiya all, As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml comments and suggestions both on- and off-list are appreciated. Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at 2100UTC. I would like to thank a few people for their help in getting it to this stage: the council for review, spb for translating Christelsk into English (with the help of the OED), nightmorph for making it look prettier than plain text in vim (without a fancy colourscheme), and marienz for being sane and reading it over. I'd also like to thank our Infrastructure team for working with us and answering questions regarding the mechanics of enforcing such a code. Christelx As others have already said, thank you for doing this work. I'm glad to see we're determined to improve communication within Gentoo. However, I also think that 3 days is not enough time for this discussion. This isn't a technical discussion, but it is in no way less important than the discussion about PMS. I only reference that discussion as a currently ongoing discussion that I feel can have the same level of impact as this discussion. I agree that we need a code of conduct that applies to both developers and users. Furthermore, I also agree developers have additional responsibilities. In my view, there's one important penalty missing from this code of conduct. Actually, the most important penalty - as a last measure, all input from a person to the project will be denied. What I mean is that for worst offenders, Gentoo must be ready to deny any contribution. As I see it, this proposed code penalties for developers start by warnings, go to temporary bans from specific communication channels, include removal of bugzilla or commit privileges, include dev status suspension and as a last resort the removal of dev status. As I see it the proposed penalties for users include warnings, suspensions from specific communication channels and as a last resort a ban from gentoo communication channels. I don't see any reference stating that we won't accept any input from banned users. I believe that the greatest reward anyone can have to participate in Gentoo is getting credit for work done on Gentoo. As such, as a last measure, we must be ready to deny such contribution from banned users - even if done through another person. To be clear, I'm not suggesting we should, or for that matter can, force every member of the community to turn his back to bad user XYZ. What I'm proposing is that we don't accept any work from XYZ through any of our users or devs. It's every developer and user choice to decide whether or not they'll keep interacting with user XYZ outside of our channels, but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ. -- Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo-forums / Userrel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ. Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or refusing to accept updates to their previous contributions? Does this extend to ignoring security advisories, security patches and critical bug fix patches published by that person? Does this extend to refusing to use upstream software that contains code by that person? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Simon Stelling wrote:
Richard Brown wrote:
Respectfully, you're wrong. When you're writing a
policy document we do need to dissect every word.
I disagree with that. At least in my country, laws are written in a
flexible enough way to give judges the ability to interprete the law
to a certain extend, and it works just great. I don't see why we have
to dissect every word, especially since it makes it so easy to not to
see the wood for the trees. The goal of the CoC is fairly vague
('getting along well'), so why is there a need to specify the way
ulta-explicit?
That may be true but then you run into Judges that start writing the
laws instead of interpreting the law. There needs to be rules and they
need to be spelled out clearly so that the people know what they are.
If a person doesn't understand the rules, then how will they know what
they are doing is wrong.
Basically, if the rules are not clear enough for every body to
understand, then there is no need to have them in the first place.
Please, don't even get me started on loop holes. ;-)
Dale
A lowly user who wants this mess to stop happening.
--
www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming it's all rethoric, what is your opinion? On 3/14/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ. Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or refusing to accept updates to their previous contributions? Does this extend to ignoring security advisories, security patches and critical bug fix patches published by that person? Does this extend to refusing to use upstream software that contains code by that person? -- Ioannis Aslanidis deathwing00[at]gentoo.org 0xB9B11F4E -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 Ioannis Aslanidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming it's all rethoric, what is your opinion? I think his intention was to demonstrate that the idea is implausible, at best counterproductive and at worst disastrous. Which it is, and which he did fairly well. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 Ioannis Aslanidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming it's all rethoric, what is your opinion? My opinion is that screwing over users is outright irresponsible, and that trying to make people unpersons has no good consequences. This whole rushed response to a tabloid article is scarily like the Patriot act. How badly are users going to have to suffer before Gentoo accepts what its real problems are? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: [Wed Mar 14 2007, 10:02:47AM CDT] In my view, there's one important penalty missing from this code of conduct. Actually, the most important penalty - as a last measure, all input from a person to the project will be denied. What I mean is that for worst offenders, Gentoo must be ready to deny any contribution. Ick. I should provide a detailed, logical explanation for why I don't like this idea, but it's mostly a visceral response for me--it just feels wrong. If some dev wants to proxy for Joe AnnoyingPerson so that the rest of the community doesn't have to deal with him, then I'm going to be perfectly happy with that arrangement. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpSh0hgB1OjE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ. Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or refusing to accept updates to their previous contributions? Does this extend to ignoring security advisories, security patches and critical bug fix patches published by that person? Does this extend to refusing to use upstream software that contains code by that person? A bit excessive, yet I agree it's completely dumb refuse a good contribution just because someone has a bad attitude on the mailing list. OBVIOUSLY it's a pity losing his or her contribution to the discussion just because we cannot use the same language to communicate consistently... lu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 13:06:13 Stephen Bennett wrote: ... I think his intention was to demonstrate that the idea is implausible, at best counterproductive and at worst disastrous. Which it is, and which he did fairly well. Or maybe he wanted to make it sound like the idea was implausible, which it isn't IMO. -- Mauricio Lima Pilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:31:57 -0300 Mauricio Lima Pilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or maybe he wanted to make it sound like the idea was implausible, which it isn't IMO. And if refusing to use code credited to that individual means that we can't use the linux kernel or bash? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 15:01:49 Stephen Bennett wrote: And if refusing to use code credited to that individual means that we can't use the linux kernel or bash? We don't need to bother hunting all the contributions in all open-source projects to avoid them, as it would be much of a PITA. We can be selective and not accept code directly submitted by such users, which would clearly state that some developer is persona non grata in our project. I think the idea is more to prevent somebody that can be technically sound to poison the environment with their trolling. If the developer wanted to avoid us to use his code from other projects, he should think about the licenses used on their submissions. -- Mauricio Lima Pilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 18:24:58 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 Ioannis Aslanidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming it's all rethoric, what is your opinion? My opinion is that screwing over users is outright irresponsible, and that trying to make people unpersons has no good consequences. This whole rushed response to a tabloid article is scarily like the Patriot act. How badly are users going to have to suffer before Gentoo accepts what its real problems are? I quite agree with the Patriot act comparison, and I would be interested to know what you think our real problems are. /Alexandre -- Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature. pgpJouckXPTGz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Am Mittwoch 14 März 2007 19:18 schrieb Mauricio Lima Pilla: We don't need to bother hunting all the contributions in all open-source projects to avoid them, as it would be much of a PITA. We can be selective and not accept code directly submitted by such users, which would clearly state that some developer is persona non grata in our project. I think the idea is more to prevent somebody that can be technically sound to poison the environment with their trolling. Dont you already clearly state the some developer is persona non grata in out project by taking the right to use the official communication channels away from that person? Why shouldnt Dev, who is a friend of xyz although xyz has been banned from all official ways to submit code to the project, read one of xyz's patches, like them, submit them to bugzilla or whatever, get others to like them too, and have them added to the project? You would require every developer to agree on never ever doing this. And - i dont see why that argument of ciaran is bad (or at least not talked about any further): What about security patches? It just wouldnt make any sense. If someone, although banned from all communication channels, gets his code into gentoo, why not let it be - she/he had no chance to offend anyone, and Gentoo wouldnt be dependent upon this person, as the developer who sends this patch as his input will be the responsible person - and will be in trouble if he doesnt understand the code himself or something similarly naive... -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ. Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or refusing to accept updates to their previous contributions? Does this extend to ignoring security advisories, security patches and critical bug fix patches published by that person? Does this extend to refusing to use upstream software that contains code by that person? No, this cannot have any backward application, nor should it. All contributions made while respecting the guidelines, are valid contributions. Yes, it prevents any further contributions in the future - be it package updates, new features, bug corrections or security updates. No, this does not prevent Gentoo from using software packages where user XYZ contributes upstream. In my view, if Gentoo does decide to ban an user and has a good relationship with upstream, we should alert upstream and provide evidence of the behaviour that led to the user ban. However, if upstream = user XYZ and the product is just a Gentoo package, then it should also be blocked - that would be a clever way to avoid the ban. Any other doubt about my proposal? -- Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo-forums / Userrel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Stephen Bennett wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 Ioannis Aslanidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming it's all rethoric, what is your opinion? I think his intention was to demonstrate that the idea is implausible, at best counterproductive and at worst disastrous. Which it is, and which he did fairly well. Could you explain how this is implausible. Removing contributions by a certain person may be silly or impossible. Refusing to accept new contributions is, while a very harsh measure, a possibility. Paul ps. Let me remind everyone that this is about new conduct, not about past behaviour. If anyone is afraid of the measures, all they have to do is behave properly. -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpNuifNQkgI3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:31:17 -0100 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, this cannot have any backward application, nor should it. All contributions made while respecting the guidelines, are valid contributions. Yes, it prevents any further contributions in the future - be it package updates, new features, bug corrections or security updates. So you consider it acceptable to leave Gentoo users open to security holes and crashes because of some personal dislikes? No, this does not prevent Gentoo from using software packages where user XYZ contributes upstream. In my view, if Gentoo does decide to ban an user and has a good relationship with upstream, we should alert upstream and provide evidence of the behaviour that led to the user ban. However, if upstream = user XYZ and the product is just a Gentoo package, then it should also be blocked - that would be a clever way to avoid the ban. Any other doubt about my proposal? So you consider it acceptable to remove the user's ability to use packages and dependencies of those packages because of some personal dislikes? What gives Gentoo the right to screw over users in such a manner? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:56:31 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Stephen Bennett wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 Ioannis Aslanidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming it's all rethoric, what is your opinion? I think his intention was to demonstrate that the idea is implausible, at best counterproductive and at worst disastrous. Which it is, and which he did fairly well. Could you explain how this is implausible. Removing contributions by a certain person may be silly or impossible. Refusing to accept new contributions is, while a very harsh measure, a possibility. Right up until the point where it leads to data loss, security holes or the inability to use important packages... What do you think users will say when told that their system will remain vulnerable to a remote root hole because Gentoo won't accept a fix from a particular person? Do you think they'll smile, nod and accept that their system is about to get taken over by some kid in Russia, or do you think they'll scream and switch to Ubuntu? Heck, that this even has to be spelt out is pretty scary... (Bear in mind that claiming to have independently rediscovered a hole and indepedently recreated a two line security change is not exactly going to go over well either...) -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:56:31 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you explain how this is implausible. Removing contributions by a certain person may be silly or impossible. Refusing to accept new contributions is, while a very harsh measure, a possibility. Perhaps not implausible in its strictest sense, as it could be done. It would, however, be a monumentally stupid idea in the general case, if said user happened to be a contributor upstream to widely-used packages, or happened to discover an important security bug in such a package. Leaving users without important applications, or vulnerable to security holes, because of what is essentially a personal dislike, is frankly a moronic proposition. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 23:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:31:17 -0100 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, this cannot have any backward application, nor should it. All contributions made while respecting the guidelines, are valid contributions. Yes, it prevents any further contributions in the future - be it package updates, new features, bug corrections or security updates. So you consider it acceptable to leave Gentoo users open to security holes and crashes because of some personal dislikes? As a member of the security team I don't see us banning patches from any developer based on their behaviour. So let's just cut of that part of the discussion here. -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) pgphuqmDEEbgG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 23:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: at do you think users will say when told that their system will remain vulnerable to a remote root hole because Gentoo won't accept a fix from a particular person? Do you think they'll smile, nod and accept that their system is about to get taken over by some kid in Russia, or do you think they'll scream and switch to Ubuntu? As I wrote elsewhere in this thread I think I can safely say that the Security Team is not going to check the origin and behaviour of all patch contributors, for one thing we simply don't have the manpower to do this. So let's just cut the security part off here. -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) pgpTWCzX6AHP2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: So you consider it acceptable to remove the user's ability to use packages and dependencies of those packages because of some personal dislikes? It should not be personal dislikes. Such a strong position should be well considered by the ones responsible. Making things personal is highly unprofessional and would hopefully lead to many developers leaving. What gives Gentoo the right to screw over users in such a manner? Gentoo is gentoo. As a developer I like to think that we keep long term user interests at heart. I also know that I mainly do things out of my own desire. I don't go out looking for users to find out what they want. I look at what I want. (And yes that includes an improved/replaced package manager) What I really don't want however is anyone strongholding gentoo. If it is hurting gentoo to reject the contributions of someone, the situation has already gotten out of hand. I don't believe that people are that irreplaceable. Even if they are, that is something that is damaging to the projects continuity. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpj2RsoW22bZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On 13/03/07, Christel Dahlskjaer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hiya all, As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml comments and suggestions both on- and off-list are appreciated. Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at 2100UTC. I would like to thank a few people for their help in getting it to this stage: the council for review, spb for translating Christelsk into English (with the help of the OED), nightmorph for making it look prettier than plain text in vim (without a fancy colourscheme), and marienz for being sane and reading it over. I'd also like to thank our Infrastructure team for working with us and answering questions regarding the mechanics of enforcing such a code. Christelx -- $a=gentoo.org; Christel Dahlskjaer | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.$a Gentoo Developeress - User Relations, Developer Relations, Gentoo/MIPS, QA, Gentoo/Alpha, PR, Events, Release Engineering, Conflict Resolution, Recruitment About time :-D It looks good! Thanks Christel, spd, nightmorph marienz. Hopefully this will go some way to make the community happier! -- /** * Gentoo * GPG : 0x2217D168 */
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Heyas Christel, A few quick comments - the document specifically calls out the gentoo-dev mailing list (for obvious reasons in the last week or two), but never identifies any other part of Gentoo's official communication infrastructure. While I completely understand the intent, the scope might want to be broadened or defined a bit. And how does this contrast/compliment the devrel conduct for forums and mailing lists? Will it replace, merge, or compliment? My other item (you knew there'd be at least one more :) is something I brought up on irc yesterday, namely (if its feasible with infra) downgrading a subscription to read-only mode rather than outright banning/suspending a user from a mailing list. They would retain the right to receive the mail, just not comment for a short period (and hopefully cooler heads will prevail, yada, etc.). Thanks for your time, -- -o()o-- Michael Cummings |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net Gentoo/SPARC Gentoo/AMD64 GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7 8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E -o()o-- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Hiya, On Tuesday 13 March 2007 03:12, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: Hiya all, As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml comments and suggestions both on- and off-list are appreciated. Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at 2100UTC. I wrote to Christel earlier today about this. But AFAIR we usually have at least a week to discuss such proposals. Apart from that enforcing our users this code of conduct with only three days of discussion is not what I find user friendly. Before getting into any detail, perhaps in another mail, I have one objection to this proposal. I think it is a waste of time giving more paper rules for Devrel to enforce http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk/branches/1.2/channels/chan_sip.c?r1=58052r2=56230as long as they are in effect powerless to stop Gentoo developers from bad behaviour. As long as we as a group of developers can't even live up to the code of conduct we have agreed upon I don't think it is wise to enforce such conduct on the rest of the community. I do support more power to Devrel but lets try to keep the house clean before we take care of the garden. Thank you for your time. -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) pgpeEz7pXgMtj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 13:05, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote: http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk/branches/1.2/channels/chan_sip.c?r1=580 52r2=56230 Woops just disregard that paste in the middle of it all:-) My mouse is severly lacking on this box while compiling :-( -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) pgpA58BtCnUoI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 13:05, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote: I wrote to Christel earlier today about this. But AFAIR we usually have at least a week to discuss such proposals. Apart from that enforcing our users this code of conduct with only three days of discussion is not what I find user friendly. First of all, I think most part of the code is just common sense. That's also the reason that it is not explicit about many things. Strictly defined rules don't apply in all situations, and jerks find ways around them or to argue that the rule does not apply to them. The modus operandi should be: We (council) define what is acceptable behaviour. If you don't like it, vote us off and get a better council. Until that time, comply. To me that is the only way to avoid free for all. We have seen that taping things over doesn't work. Before getting into any detail, perhaps in another mail, I have one objection to this proposal. I think it is a waste of time giving more paper rules for Devrel to enforce as long as they are in effect powerless to stop Gentoo developers from bad behaviour. As long as we as a group of developers can't even live up to the code of conduct we have agreed upon I don't think it is wise to enforce such conduct on the rest of the community. I don't see how this is an objection. It sound more like a remark or observation. Naturally the enforcement needs to happen and infrastructure must be supportive to that (e.g. by providing do-it-yourself tools to devrel). I do support more power to Devrel but lets try to keep the house clean before we take care of the garden. Well, I don't consider -dev to be our garden, but rather gentoo's living with an open door policy. Most participants are either devs, or are close to being devs. In any case they are not general users. Paul ps. I would also like to suggest that the devrels looks at things like micro bans. That is, banning someone for a couple of days from sending to the mailing list. This could be effective against e.g. people who continue to feed trolls after being warned not to do so. -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpraoQ9QYRxV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: Hiya all, As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml comments and suggestions both on- and off-list are appreciated. Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at 2100UTC. I would like to thank a few people for their help in getting it to this stage: the council for review, spb for translating Christelsk into English (with the help of the OED), nightmorph for making it look prettier than plain text in vim (without a fancy colourscheme), and marienz for being sane and reading it over. I'd also like to thank our Infrastructure team for working with us and answering questions regarding the mechanics of enforcing such a code. Christelx Having lots of experience in this I feel I can bring some constructive criticism here. It is written in a manner that has no direction. It is far too tentative and as such comes over as suggestions rather than a set of rules that one has to adhere to. The language should be changed so that /these are the rules and these are the consequences/ For example: Acceptable behaviour: Things that we do want to see should be changed to something like This is what Gentoo considers to be acceptable. Any posts not adhering to this will subject to deletion and poster may be subject to removal from the subsequent information channel. It is necessary for everyone to know exactly where they stand because any ambiguity can be used by those who wish to disrupt and so far that has caused many users and developers to leave. If you want an example see the rules I made for the userreps forum. If you need any help, contact me. George -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 13:32, Paul de Vrieze wrote: First of all, I think most part of the code is just common sense. That's also the reason that it is not explicit about many things. Strictly defined rules don't apply in all situations, and jerks find ways around them or to argue that the rule does not apply to them. I agree. -However I fail to see which channels are affected and which are not? -Who's going to enfore it(I just presumed it to be Devrel but it could also be the Council itself)? -What are the appeal options if any? And with only three days for commenting this seems like a rushed proposal that is better postponed to the next meeting. AFAIR we've had similar issues postponed just because of this deadline. Let's give all devs and near devs a chance to speak up. The modus operandi should be: We (council) define what is acceptable behaviour. If you don't like it, vote us off and get a better council. Until that time, comply. To me that is the only way to avoid free for all. We have seen that taping things over doesn't work. So the current situation is: We have both devs and non-devs disregard normal code of conduct. We have a written policy about dev behaviour but haven't enforced it on several occasions so now we are going to try regulating the users instead? Shouldn't we just try to behave ourselves before trying to make others behave? (no flames or blames intended, it's just how I see it) Before getting into any detail, perhaps in another mail, I have one objection to this proposal. I don't see how this is an objection. It sound more like a remark or observation. Naturally the enforcement needs to happen and infrastructure must be supportive to that (e.g. by providing do-it-yourself tools to devrel). As long as Devrel doesn't have the power to enforce it I don't see a point. If the Council has the power to enforce this fairly, then great. I do support more power to Devrel but lets try to keep the house clean before we take care of the garden. Well, I don't consider -dev to be our garden, but rather gentoo's living with an open door policy. Most participants are either devs, or are close to being devs. In any case they are not general users. As for -dev you're right. But again the proposal is so vague it only mentions Gentoo's official communication infrastructure. I take this to mean all mailing lists, forums, IRC. So in my eyes it will affect general users as well. ps. I would also like to suggest that the devrels looks at things like micro bans. That is, banning someone for a couple of days from sending to the mailing list. This could be effective against e.g. people who continue to feed trolls after being warned not to do so. Seems like a better and less heavy handed approach to me. -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) pgpHwqWQ94yVp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 07:30 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: banning/suspending a user from a mailing list. They would retain the right to receive the mail, just not comment for a short period (and hopefully cooler heads will prevail, yada, etc.). You mean the privilege to receive the mails, right? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:28:50 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 07:30 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: banning/suspending a user from a mailing list. They would retain the right to receive the mail, just not comment for a short period (and hopefully cooler heads will prevail, yada, etc.). You mean the privilege to receive the mails, right? Actually, not exactly :) Not knowing anything about the particular list management software we're using, of course, and basing this only my experience with other mailing lists and our own (ancient) listserv's here at work, users can be placed in read-only status, which means they can't post to the list, but still receive the mailings. Possibly not feasible with out particular list implementation, but something I thought I'd toss out there. -- -o()o-- Michael Cummings |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net Gentoo/SPARC Gentoo/AMD64 GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7 8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E -o()o-- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 09:34 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:28:50 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 07:30 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: banning/suspending a user from a mailing list. They would retain the right to receive the mail, just not comment for a short period (and hopefully cooler heads will prevail, yada, etc.). You mean the privilege to receive the mails, right? Actually, not exactly :) Not knowing anything about the particular list management software we're using, of course, and basing this only my experience with other mailing lists and our own (ancient) listserv's here at work, users can be placed in read-only status, which means they can't post to the list, but still receive the mailings. Possibly not feasible with out particular list implementation, but something I thought I'd toss out there. Well, mlmmj doesn't have this sort of feature. Instead, it has a more procmail-like access list. We can use that to put users into a read-only status, by filtering for them and denying posting from them, but that still doesn't change my opinion that participation on the mailing lists, including *receiving* mails, is a privilege, not a right. Currently, it is a privilege that we extend to anyone, and we have not revoked it except in dire circumstances. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 14:01 +0100, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote: On Tuesday 13 March 2007 13:32, Paul de Vrieze wrote: First of all, I think most part of the code is just common sense. That's also the reason that it is not explicit about many things. Strictly defined rules don't apply in all situations, and jerks find ways around them or to argue that the rule does not apply to them. I agree. -However I fail to see which channels are affected and which are not? We should be enforcing this on all channels. It shouldn't be OK to be an asshole on one medium and not another. -What are the appeal options if any? Council. So the current situation is: We have both devs and non-devs disregard normal code of conduct. We have a written policy about dev behaviour but haven't enforced it on several occasions so now we are going to try regulating the users instead? Shouldn't we just try to behave ourselves before trying to make others behave? Uhh, no. This gets enforced on devs and users alike. As long as Devrel doesn't have the power to enforce it I don't see a point. If the Council has the power to enforce this fairly, then great. As many people have stated before, the Council really has as much power as its willing to take. Up until now, we've been very leery of taking on any form of power to reduce the chance of people calling us some kind of cabal. At the same time, we've realized that we were elected to do *exactly this sort of thing* so we've decided collectively to step up and take charge. If people don't like it, they can vote for other people next time around. ;] As for -dev you're right. But again the proposal is so vague it only mentions Gentoo's official communication infrastructure. I take this to mean all mailing lists, forums, IRC. So in my eyes it will affect general users as well. I look at anything with a gentoo.org address as our house. While some might disagree with this statement, I'm pretty sure this is the stance we're taking on it. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 15:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote: We should be enforcing this on all channels. It shouldn't be OK to be an asshole on one medium and not another. Ack. -What are the appeal options if any? Council. Then it should perhaps be mentioned in the proposal. So the current situation is: We have both devs and non-devs disregard normal code of conduct. We have a written policy about dev behaviour but haven't enforced it on several occasions so now we are going to try regulating the users instead? Shouldn't we just try to behave ourselves before trying to make others behave? Uhh, no. This gets enforced on devs and users alike. I wouldn't bring it up in the first place, but we've had previous examples with devs calling other devs not so kind things and to my knowledge it didn't result in any action. I seem to remember a rather active dev taking it not so lightly, resulting in one less dev and no action from Devrel/Council. As long as Devrel doesn't have the power to enforce it I don't see a point. If the Council has the power to enforce this fairly, then great. As many people have stated before, the Council really has as much power as its willing to take. Up until now, we've been very leery of taking on any form of power to reduce the chance of people calling us some kind of cabal. At the same time, we've realized that we were elected to do *exactly this sort of thing* so we've decided collectively to step up and take charge. If people don't like it, they can vote for other people next time around. ;] I look forward to seeing that. However given that the current Council have been active for 8+ months with no action on this subject, I don't see any harm in giving proper time to discuss this? In the mean time we could just try to enforce the dev Etiquette policy that we've had a long time. As for -dev you're right. But again the proposal is so vague it only mentions Gentoo's official communication infrastructure. I take this to mean all mailing lists, forums, IRC. So in my eyes it will affect general users as well. I look at anything with a gentoo.org address as our house. While some might disagree with this statement, I'm pretty sure this is the stance we're taking on it. So this doesn't apply to the Gentoo IRC channels? -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) pgpnVSzrRxBd7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:10:21 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, mlmmj doesn't have this sort of feature. Instead, it has a more procmail-like access list. We can use that to put users into a read-only status, by filtering for them and denying posting from them, but that still doesn't change my opinion that participation on the mailing lists, including *receiving* mails, is a privilege, not a right. Currently, it is a privilege that we extend to anyone, and we have not revoked it except in dire circumstances. Then why are there public archives? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:10:21 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, mlmmj doesn't have this sort of feature. Instead, it has a more procmail-like access list. We can use that to put users into a read-only status, by filtering for them and denying posting from them, but that still doesn't change my opinion that participation on the mailing lists, including *receiving* mails, is a privilege, not a right. Currently, it is a privilege that we extend to anyone, and we have not revoked it except in dire circumstances. Then why are there public archives? Note the subtle difference between receiving and reading in public archives. Some people may prefer their mail client. -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Hi, And first, thanks for the work done. I'd like to make a few comments about this Code of Conduct. Over the past years, Gentoo has been organised over a large part of paper-rules, and other theorical precepts. But human nature is just not theorical. And therefore, we have to constantly adapt to people whom we meet, who, what is more, evolve by themselves. I'd like to quote the forum guidelines : The guidelines outlined in this guide are not intended to be universal and are not to be followed in a rigid way, due to the different nature of situations that might occur. That is, there will be times when all of the guidelines should be partially or completely ignored. The moderator's judgment should be the primary influence when making a decision. Yes, that's right, we sometimes have to deal with real situations that were not explicitely planned in the guidelines. And we sometimes have to make unilateral decisions (with the agreement of other moderators, of course). My personal point of view is that, sometimes, we should just rely on showing common sense. Yes, this can be quite subjective. But when 100% of the moderation team agrees, maybe common sense is just the right answer to our problems. = Yes, I think that banning may be the right answer to some recent problems Gentoo had to deal with one of its ex-developer. Allowing this user (he is not a dev anymore) to relay its anger through *our* mailing-list is, I think, a real problem for our *actual* developer base. Some usefull and/or very active developers retired or gave up. And, in fact, this is a shame for Gentoo. Of course, it implies that we must have a group of developers, able to quickly make decisions, as well as to ensure these decisions are adequate. In fact, a gentoo wise men council. I think our actual council structure is not the right place to do this job, because treating such problems needs to be very fast (meeting once a month does not sound fast enough to me for this particular task). You could then tell me that I was, in the first lines of this mail, complaining about paperwork. I think that this Code of Conduct, and any other document of this kind, should be merged, to allow the same rules to apply *in any part of the Gentoo project*. Respect is just not an option : it should be the rule, whenever you are user, developer, or retired developer, and whatever media you are using. Thanks for reading, Cheers, Hubert. PS : The first sentence of the Preambule could maybe be added to the Gentoo Social Contract ? Gentoo prides itself on being a community driven distribution and everything we do we do with the best interest of the community at heart. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 16:00 +0100, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote: Uhh, no. This gets enforced on devs and users alike. I wouldn't bring it up in the first place, but we've had previous examples with devs calling other devs not so kind things and to my knowledge it didn't result in any action. I seem to remember a rather active dev taking it not so lightly, resulting in one less dev and no action from Devrel/Council. What exactly do previous examples have to do with us saying that our past efforts didn't work and our trying to come up with a *new* way of doing these things to not repeat past problems/mistakes? Let me just clarify this. We don't care how things were done in the past. We are looking *forward* and trying to come up with the best solution from here on out. I look at anything with a gentoo.org address as our house. While some might disagree with this statement, I'm pretty sure this is the stance we're taking on it. So this doesn't apply to the Gentoo IRC channels? *sigh* I wasn't aware that I would have to spell out everything. How about this, then? EVERYTHING with gentoo.org or #gentoo-* in it? Is that good enough? (Looking forward to the day when we don't have to be so damned pedantic in everything that we write.) -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On 13/03/07, Christel Dahlskjaer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hiya all, Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at 2100UTC. UTC and GMT being the same, right? so 2100UTC is exactly nine hours after 1200GMT? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:01:33 + Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: UTC and GMT being the same, right? so 2100UTC is exactly nine hours after 1200GMT? For all relevant purposes, yes. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On 13/03/07, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:01:33 + Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: UTC and GMT being the same, right? so 2100UTC is exactly nine hours after 1200GMT? For all relevant purposes, yes. -- Tyvm. -- Q: What will happen in the Aftermath? A: Impossible to tell, since we're still in the Beforemath. http://latedeveloper.org.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Chris Gianelloni wrote: What exactly do previous examples have to do with us saying that our past efforts didn't work and our trying to come up with a *new* way of doing these things to not repeat past problems/mistakes? Let me just clarify this. We don't care how things were done in the past. We are looking *forward* and trying to come up with the best solution from here on out. You're contradicting yourself. You're saying things didn't work in the past, but these things, and by inference the reasons why they happened the way they did, have no relevance to your plans to improve things? *sigh* I wasn't aware that I would have to spell out everything. How about this, then? EVERYTHING with gentoo.org or #gentoo-* in it? Is that good enough? (Looking forward to the day when we don't have to be so damned pedantic in everything that we write.) Why is it a such a problem to be clear? The council is proposing changes that affect us all, giving us two days to discuss it, and then a council member is shouting at someone when he says he thinks the CoC is unclear? In your original reply, you didn't exactly exude confidence when you said I'm pretty sure this is the stance we're taking on it. If jaervosz feels the policy is unclear, when would it have been appropriate for him to ask for clarification? After the council has declared it law, or after he's received his first warning? Finally, I'm struggling to see the respect in your replies to a jaervosz, something the new CoC the council are about to order us to follow suggests is an integral part of acceptable behaviour when disagreeing with or challenging someone. Apologies for length, -- Richard Brown -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Thanks for the work on the new doc; it's much appreciated. Here's some comments, in no particularly good order: * Can we find a better name than the Proctors, please? Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first one that came to mind. As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml comments and suggestions both on- and off-list are appreciated. * I highly recommend reading http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct and our new doc side-by-side. The former provides strong, positive guidelines for members of the community, with penalties for failing to live up to those guidelines kept vague and mostly out-of-sight, while still implying that the rules have teeth. Our doc focuses much more on not doing bad things (instead of on an implicit expectation of doing good things), it actually highlights punishment before bad behavior before good (or acceptable) behavior, and the tone is rather more tentative. I much prefer Ubuntu's doc. It's not completely relevant to Gentoo, but I'd much rather crib from their text (assuming Ubuntu's permission, since that doc is copyrighted and I don't know what license, if any, they use), making minor changes to better reflect how Gentoo works, than use the proposed doc in its current form. Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at 2100UTC. * I understand the desire to act quickly, so that it appears that Gentoo is doing something about this problem. However, I agree with those who think that a few days isn't really enough time for an adequate discussion. For this sort of policy to be effective, devs need to agree with it. The Council can still make temporary rules on Thursday while allowing the rest of the process to occur more leisurely. * Having a group of folks separate from devrel who would be doing similar things to what devrel does (when devrel isn't involved in recruiting) somehow seems a bit silly. I'd much rather we just broaden that part of Developer Relations to Community Relations. * Ubuntu requires that their devs sign a copy of their code of conduct. (I assume an electronic signature suffices?) Would that be a good idea for us to do something similar? I don't really have a strong feeling one way or another. Despite how critical I'm being, I really do appreciate the work that has gone into this so far. Thank you very much. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpC9y5kFBjPg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 20:24 +, Richard Brown wrote: Why is it a such a problem to be clear? The council is proposing changes that affect us all, giving us two days to discuss it, and then a council member is shouting at someone when he says he thinks the CoC is unclear? I am shouting at no one. At no point have I done anything to indicate any sort of anger. Finally, I'm struggling to see the respect in your replies to a jaervosz, something the new CoC the council are about to order us to follow suggests is an integral part of acceptable behaviour when disagreeing with or challenging someone. If you're failing to see the respect in my replies I get the feeling that you're reading much more into my replies than the simple text that is laid out in my emails. I'm not going to respond to this thread anymore, since I'm apparently being disrespectful by attempting to provide answers to the questions given. Here's my opinion, and this doesn't reflect the thoughts of the Council, at all. Sure, you can say that it reflects the thoughts of one Council member, but not the whole. I'm sick of this. Writing is not like code. Writing is interpreted. There isn't a right and wrong in writing. You don't have to always be exact and specific. You don't have to be pedantic and list out every single detail to every single point. You also don't have to pick apart every single word that every single person says on every single post. This sort of attitude of trying to point out everyone else's flaws is part of the reason we have such a culture of mistrust and hostility within Gentoo. If you'd read something into my posts on this matter other than what is simply stated, you've done my writing a disservice and have tried to place an interpretation where it was expected that there would be none. Because of this, I am determining that I have failed in getting my point across properly, and rather than wasting any more of everyone's time trying to continually rectify my shortcomings, will leave the responses for others who are more eloquent than myself to write. Have a good day everyone. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 22:09, Grant Goodyear wrote: Thanks for the work on the new doc; it's much appreciated. snipped Despite how critical I'm being, I really do appreciate the work that has gone into this so far. Thank you very much. I agree on all points. -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) pgpMM48inQ5oK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: Hiya all, As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml comments and suggestions both on- and off-list are appreciated. well, all these problems would've been solved, if there were more girls around ;) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Thanks for the write-up :) | Receiving one (or more) warnings. Usually, you wouldn't be banned for | a single warning, but it might happen if we feel your infraction is | severe enough. We consider banning to be pretty serious; we take each | situation on a case-by-case basis and make sure we always have a | consensus for whatever decision we reach. Who is we in this? I assume it's devrel, but I think it should be written out. -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: * Can we find a better name than the Proctors, please? Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first one that came to mind. +1, i think i haven't ever heard that word before, and it sounds quite empty to me as a non english person. * I understand the desire to act quickly, so that it appears that Gentoo is doing something about this problem. However, I agree with those who think that a few days isn't really enough time for an adequate discussion. For this sort of policy to be effective, devs need to agree with it. The Council can still make temporary rules on Thursday while allowing the rest of the process to occur more leisurely. Wanted to write something like that too, but your version is better than mine. ;-) cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org pgpnkHLYjnyZu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 16:00 +0100, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote: Uhh, no. This gets enforced on devs and users alike. I wouldn't bring it up in the first place, but we've had previous examples with devs calling other devs not so kind things and to my knowledge it didn't result in any action. I seem to remember a rather active dev taking it not so lightly, resulting in one less dev and no action from Devrel/Council. What exactly do previous examples have to do with us saying that our past efforts didn't work and our trying to come up with a *new* way of doing these things to not repeat past problems/mistakes? Let me just clarify this. We don't care how things were done in the past. We are looking *forward* and trying to come up with the best solution from here on out. I look at anything with a gentoo.org address as our house. While some might disagree with this statement, I'm pretty sure this is the stance we're taking on it. So this doesn't apply to the Gentoo IRC channels? *sigh* I wasn't aware that I would have to spell out everything. How about this, then? EVERYTHING with gentoo.org or #gentoo-* in it? Is that good enough? (Looking forward to the day when we don't have to be so damned pedantic in everything that we write.) I would like to point you #4 in the CoC draft - *Being judgmental, mean-spirited or insulting.* It is possible to challenge someone (respectfully, of course), in a way that empowers without being judgemental. ;) George -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: * Can we find a better name than the Proctors, please? Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first one that came to mind. Suggestions welcome. We were stuck for other suitable names, and it was my own suggestion for proctors, based on the dictionary definition: an official charged with various duties, esp. with the maintenance of good order. [1] I'm going to continue to use the term in my response here, for lack of anything else, but really, suggestions to the name are welcome. * I highly recommend reading http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct and our new doc side-by-side. The former provides strong, positive The Ubuntu guidelines are well-mirrored in the existing etiquette policy: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3chap=2 Read them side by side (Ubuntu and the existing policy) is a little harder, as the layout is very different, but the core message is the same. However the existing policy has not worked. Reasons and theories behind why are rife within Gentoo. Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at 2100UTC. * I understand the desire to act quickly, so that it appears that Gentoo is doing something about this problem. However, I agree with those who think that a few days isn't really enough time for an adequate discussion. For this sort of policy to be effective, devs need to agree with it. The Council can still make temporary rules on Thursday while allowing the rest of the process to occur more leisurely. As the council, you have charged us with ensuring a technical direction for Gentoo. We are working on it, we really are. In the meantime, we saying that the buck stops here, because right now, Gentoo is being seriously damaged as a distribution. If these rules don't help matters in the short term, please really do bring another proposal (some hybrid of the Ubuntu CoC even), either to us, or the council that succeeds us. * Having a group of folks separate from devrel who would be doing similar things to what devrel does (when devrel isn't involved in recruiting) somehow seems a bit silly. I'd much rather we just broaden that part of Developer Relations to Community Relations. I'd to quote from Christel's mail here: 2. The Proctors is not a new name for Devrel. They would fall under Devrel territory, but as a newly formed group under the leadership and supervision of the Council. A decision as to numbers and electing proctors has not yet been reached -- we are working out these details as we speak. (My suggestion here is to select a group of people from a wide variety of backgrounds within Gentoo, taking care to avoid 'old boys clubs' and cliques) Simply renaming devrel to commrel and handing them the task won't solve anything - there will still be complaints that devrel is being unfair (and is indeed why your Ombuds position exists). As the council, we will require of the Proctors that they are impartial and fair. * Ubuntu requires that their devs sign a copy of their code of conduct. (I assume an electronic signature suffices?) Would that be a good idea for us to do something similar? I don't really have a strong feeling one way or another. How do we enforce this on users (both those that were never developers as well as those that were ex-developers) fairly then? I see equal enforcement as a benefit here. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proctor -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpojdFNg5w3o.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 20:24 +, Richard Brown wrote: Why is it a such a problem to be clear? The council is proposing changes that affect us all, giving us two days to discuss it, and then a council member is shouting at someone when he says he thinks the CoC is unclear? I am shouting at no one. At no point have I done anything to indicate any sort of anger. You wrote EVERYTHING instead of everything, on the internet that is shouting. If your posts weren't conveying anger, they were expressing your annoyance at having to post at all. What emotion did you think you were expressing when you wrote *sigh*, or when you said we don't care? If you're failing to see the respect in my replies I get the feeling that you're reading much more into my replies than the simple text that is laid out in my emails. I'm not going to respond to this thread anymore, since I'm apparently being disrespectful by attempting to provide answers to the questions given. No, it's the exact opposite, all I'm doing is reading your words, and they're very emotive. I'm perfectly happy to accept that you didn't mean any disrespect in what you said, but will the Proctor's be? Will jaervosz be? Stopping posting is one way of dealing with it, I suppose, is that the purpose of the CoC? You say something, I say I don't think you're being respectful and you back down? The CoC shouldn't leave you feeling unable to express your view. member, but not the whole. I'm sick of this. Writing is not like code. Writing is interpreted. There isn't a right and wrong in writing. You don't have to always be exact and specific. You don't have to be pedantic and list out every single detail to every single point. You also don't have to pick apart every single word that every single person says on every single post. Already you're back using emotive language in a technical discussion, I'm sick of this. Respectfully, you're wrong. When you're writing a policy document we do need to dissect every word. An author might know what they mean when they write it, but what if they're not around next year to ask? I don't mistrust you wolf31o2, I want to make sure I don't misunderstand you, and I want to make sure that when a new policy is enacted, it's right, not rushed. Apologies for length, -- Richard Brown signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
[replying here as it already cleared out a couple of things i wanted to ask] On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 05:19:03PM +, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: 3. The proctors would be given the access required to execute any suspensions or similar actions. Please define access. Does that mean they get to ban people from the forums and all #gentoo-* channels? Do they get mod/op powers or just request it from the respective forum moderators / channel operators (who _have_ to follow their orders)? This is also very unclear in the doc: Things that could get you banned/suspended from Gentoo's official communication infrastructure: What exactly is Gentoo's official communication infrastructure? The mailinglists? _All_ IRC channels? So far #gentoo and #gentoo-dev are the only channels following some official policy, all others are ruled by whatever project/owner they have (afaik, correct me if wrong). Would a ban also affect all #gentoo-* channels and the forums? Posting on planet? What about gentoo developers calling people names in non-gentoo channels while wearing a gentoo cloak on irc or being otherwise easily identified as such (e.g. posting flames to debian mailing lists using @gentoo.org email)? 4. By Gentoo fora/Official Communication Channels we refer to all official channels of communication; MLs, IRC, Forums, IM, Bugzilla etc. Kind of answers my question, but i'm still asking for confirmation because i have a hard time believing it. Do the proctors get to overrule every team that moderates some communication channel already? (This does NOT mean we are replacing guidelines for sub-fora -- the CoC would be in addition to IRC and Forum guidelines). This should be added to the doc - as far i understand it defines minimum standards, and there are additional rules for certain irc channels and the forums (probably best to link them in the guide). Furthermore this raises an important question for me: So far, the forums moderators (as well as the ops in #gentoo) have enforced their policies. As long proctors and mods/ops are of the same opinion about a person, fine - but what about the following situations: - A developer misbehaves on the forums according to the forums staff and gets banned by them. So far, it has been our policy (not written, and hardly used every 2 years) to let devrel know about it in case they wanted to do something else about it. I guess it would make sense to continue that. What if the proctors disagree with the ban? - The proctors think someone is misbehaving on the forums and want him banned, while the forums staff think it is not ban worthy. What now? I also understand that the timeframe for peer-review is shorter than what you have all expected (and wished for), and I fully understand the annoyance in regards to this. It's shorter than what we had originally aimed for. I seriously hope the council doesn't do a final vote on something where a lot of details are yet unclear and undefined, otherwise i'll vote the bums out. [1] Don't get me wrong, it's about time to do something, but rushing through something completely new probably will only make things worse. cheers, Wernfried [1] before anyone goes proctor on me, read http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html :-P -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org pgp2CehAC2qcO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Grant Goodyear wrote: Thanks for the work on the new doc; it's much appreciated. Despite how critical I'm being, I really do appreciate the work that has gone into this so far. Thank you very much. +1 lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Robin H. Johnson wrote: [Tue Mar 13 2007, 06:05:10PM CDT] On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: * Can we find a better name than the Proctors, please? Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first one that came to mind. Suggestions welcome. We were stuck for other suitable names, and it was my own suggestion for proctors, based on the dictionary definition: an official charged with various duties, esp. with the maintenance of good order. [1] Ubuntu uses Community Council. I suggested Community Relations. *Shrug* * I highly recommend reading http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct and our new doc side-by-side. The former provides strong, positive The Ubuntu guidelines are well-mirrored in the existing etiquette policy: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3chap=2 Read them side by side (Ubuntu and the existing policy) is a little harder, as the layout is very different, but the core message is the same. One may argue with the content of either the old etiquette guide or the Ubuntu Code of Conduct, but I suspect that most would agree that the Ubuntu Code of Conduct is both more encouraging and better written. I think it's also much more encouraging and better written than is the proposed doc, as well. However the existing policy has not worked. Reasons and theories behind why are rife within Gentoo. You're arguing that a much more punitive doc is required because the previous doc has been ineffective? That's a reasonable argument, but I don't think I agree. The previous doc had no moral weight, so to speak, because it was imposed on devs without any real discussion, and that's made it hard to enforce. Moreover, there's long been notable distrust of devrel, which historically made it hard for them to enforce it. My belief is that developer buy-in would make all of the difference in how effective a code of conduct would be. * I understand the desire to act quickly, so that it appears that Gentoo is doing something about this problem. However, I agree with those who think that a few days isn't really enough time for an adequate discussion. For this sort of policy to be effective, devs need to agree with it. The Council can still make temporary rules on Thursday while allowing the rest of the process to occur more leisurely. As the council, you have charged us with ensuring a technical direction for Gentoo. We are working on it, we really are. In the meantime, we saying that the buck stops here, because right now, Gentoo is being seriously damaged as a distribution. I didn't mean to suggest that the buck didn't stop w/ the Council, or that the Council wasn't admirably working to set a direction for Gentoo. My apologies for appearing to imply either of those things. I simply think you folks are rushing things more than is really necessary. Take a look at yesterday's threads started by Mr. Long. He was stirring up trouble, and he was not terribly successful because, after a bit of latency, people refused to play along. That's a positive change that I suspect occurred at least in part _because_ the Council is leading here. I think the Council is already making a difference, and that there's time to come up with something beautiful instead of just functional. * Having a group of folks separate from devrel who would be doing similar things to what devrel does (when devrel isn't involved in recruiting) somehow seems a bit silly. I'd much rather we just broaden that part of Developer Relations to Community Relations. I'd to quote from Christel's mail here: 2. The Proctors is not a new name for Devrel. They would fall under Devrel territory, but as a newly formed group under the leadership and supervision of the Council. A decision as to numbers and electing proctors has not yet been reached -- we are working out these details as we speak. *Grin* I actually did read Christel's e-mail. I disagree with that part. (My suggestion here is to select a group of people from a wide variety of backgrounds within Gentoo, taking care to avoid 'old boys clubs' and cliques) Simply renaming devrel to commrel and handing them the task won't solve anything - there will still be complaints that devrel is being unfair (and is indeed why your Ombuds position exists). As the council, we will require of the Proctors that they are impartial and fair. Here's my problem with it: essentially what you're arguing for the proctors to be is the same as what devrel should be (at least for the part of devrel that is supposed to be looking after community standards). If you're creating a new group because of distrust of devrel, then it makes more sense to either fix devrel (assuming it needs fixing), or disband that part, or put your trust in devrel's current incarnation. (My personal view is that we've had a nearly complete turnover in devrel multiple times since the
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
070314 Marius Mauch wrote: Why does this have to be rushed so quickly? Just to fight the bad PR caused by the distrowatch article? As a user for 3.5 years an observer who has read this thread, but started deleting the original abusive thread as soon as it got going, I'ld say Council has handled the matter correctly that there's no need for further action on this occasion. The incident involved two men, one of whom was not a dev at all, the other very recently returned as a dev after a long absence apparently had no notion of the major changes which have happened meanwhile (I am aware of his original role in Gentoo of his abortive job at Microsoft). Except for basically telling both of them to stop their fight, no-one among the regular hard-working Gentoo devs was involved in it. The prodigal has left again, presumably for good, everyone else can carry on as they were before his re-appearance. The matter was correctly summed up in 2 lines in last week's GWN 5 words in LWN (I don't subscribe, so haven't read the full report). As for Distrowatch, I was shocked at its ignorance ranting hostility: whoever wrote it has a personal axe of some sort to grind was setting out to try to make a lot more of the incident that it deserved (he started by saying CM is a Gentoo dev, which he is not). No-one should be influenced by it, except as a black mark against Distrowatch. Council does need to be firm in dealing with the occasional disruptive person, but in the two recent cases it has been firm enough without being brutal. Its members deserve thanks support. It's time everyone returned to what they were doing a month ago. BTW proctors are the 2 ancient officials at Oxford U whose responsibility is to keep order among the student population: they are Senior Junior and are elected (OU is a democracy, like Gentoo) from among the faculty. They were usually to be seen only on Guy Fawkes night when I was there 1960-71 (any Gentooer with more recent knowledge can update this). -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban Community Studies TRANSIT`-O--O---' University of Toronto -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: Hiya all, As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml comments and suggestions both on- and off-list are appreciated. Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at 2100UTC. I would like to thank a few people for their help in getting it to this stage: the council for review, spb for translating Christelsk into English (with the help of the OED), nightmorph for making it look prettier than plain text in vim (without a fancy colourscheme), and marienz for being sane and reading it over. I'd also like to thank our Infrastructure team for working with us and answering questions regarding the mechanics of enforcing such a code. Christelx Does flaming and trolling need some kind of definition? Or is it generally understood? Does the role of the proctor need explaining? How is it defined? Where does the authority come from? etc? Mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Mike Bonar wrote: Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: Hiya all, As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml comments and suggestions both on- and off-list are appreciated. Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at 2100UTC. I would like to thank a few people for their help in getting it to this stage: the council for review, spb for translating Christelsk into English (with the help of the OED), nightmorph for making it look prettier than plain text in vim (without a fancy colourscheme), and marienz for being sane and reading it over. I'd also like to thank our Infrastructure team for working with us and answering questions regarding the mechanics of enforcing such a code. Christelx Does flaming and trolling need some kind of definition? Or is it generally understood? Does the role of the proctor need explaining? How is it defined? Where does the authority come from? etc? Mike The council vote. -- === Mike Doty kingtaco -at- gentoo.org Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead Gentoo Council Gentoo Developer Relations Gentoo Infrastructure GPG: E1A5 1C9C 93FE F430 C1D6 F2AF 806B A2E4 19F4 AE05 === -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: Hiya all, As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml comments and suggestions both on- and off-list are appreciated. Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at 2100UTC. The document makes no mention of who 'The Proctors' are. My first reading says this is partly by design; but I would like to clarify that part (ie; the appointment of proctors is outside the scope of this document). The document makes no mention of what 'Gentoo Official Communication Infrastructure' is. Does it include the forums? Does it include all of IRC, some of IRC, etc. I don't wish for you to enumerate it in the document; that would be a PITA for you to maintain. My primary concern (as a former #gentoo op and a guy who reads the forum occasionally) is that if you are attempting to enforce this on the forums and on bits of IRC that they know you plan on doing so so they can mend their policies accordingly. IE I don't want to hear about how person Foo got banned on the forums for this magical new policy when the forums policy is still old, etc... The document refers to warnings but doesn't describe who they are supposed to be from. Are these warnings from the Proctor, from a dev, from a user? I guess in relation to my other point about; does this affect only main ML's or all Gentoo ML's? I have seen points of abuse on other mailing lists but I figured that most..what I'll term project-ML's are relatively self-policing (similarly to their #gentoo-project irc counterparts). I am wondering if this document is meant to smooth things over on the other ML's as well. I think that sums up all the real policy concerns I have; thanks for reading. -Alec -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
