Re: Meeting Minutes Published - November 12, 2009

Hi, Brian Cameron wrote: > * Need to find a new time for the meeting since the current time is > not good for Srinivasa Ragavan. Stormy will set up a new Doodle > meeting. Everyone: enter your times in Doodle, be flexible! Can I repeat my suggestion of the start of the term? Rota

Re: Meeting Minutes Published - October 29, 2009

On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 23:53 +0100, Andy Wingo wrote: Hi Andy, > On Fri 13 Nov 2009 22:27, Brian Cameron writes: > > > Minutes for Meeting of October 29th, 2009 > [...] > > More generally, we need to make sure that GNOME Foundation members > > sign the GNOME Code of Conduct, and perh

Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi all, The Board has recently received some complaints from members of the community about certain the inappropriate behaviors. In the context of GNOME Foundation, it's really hard to argue about how we expect our members to behave if there is no official guidelines that members are supposed to c

Re: Meeting Minutes Published - October 29, 2009

Hi, 2009/11/24 Vincent Untz : > Le mardi 24 novembre 2009, à 23:53 +0100, Andy Wingo a écrit : >> Hi Brian, >> >> Thanks for the detailed and readable notes! >> >> On Fri 13 Nov 2009 22:27, Brian Cameron writes: >> >> > Minutes for Meeting of October 29th, 2009 >> [...] >> >       More generally,

Re: Meeting Minutes Published - October 29, 2009

On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 21:01 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Emmanuele Bassi > wrote: > There is no official enforcement of these principles > > unless the CoC gets an official enforcement (and this > paragraph is > remove

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi, Lucas Rocha wrote: > The GNOME Code of Conduct[1] has been serving > very well as an informal guideline for the community but we'd like to > make it an official document that new Foundation members are expected > to explicitly agree[2] with before being accepted. This way we'll have a > common

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Lucas Rocha wrote: > it's really hard to argue about how we expect our > members to behave if there is no official guidelines that members are > supposed to comply with. That seems like a cop-out to me, at least as phrased. Does this mean if there's a codified set

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 12:48 +, Lucas Rocha wrote: Hi board, Lucas, > The Board has recently received some complaints from members of the > community about certain the inappropriate behaviors. In the context of > GNOME Foundation, it's really hard to argue about how we expect our > members to

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi Lucas On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:48:45PM +, Lucas Rocha wrote: > The GNOME Code of Conduct[1] has been serving very well as an > informal guideline for the community but we'd like to make it an > official document that new Foundation members are expected to > explicitly agree[2] with before

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > > I think this is taking it too far. The "Code of Conduct" being > presented as a set of guidelines is OK, but it is not wise to make it > policy. The GNOME project is not a sect, to control what I can and > cannot say/do in public. > W

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

I believe that this discussion is becoming far too bloated. How often do we have to deal with offended people? What energy will we spend to deal with each case on a case by case basis? Answer is A. How much energy will we spend to try to design a law/rule that might fit every use case and will b

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Dave Neary wrote: > It seems like the issue isn't making people promise to be nice, it's > what happens when they aren't. And once again the board has taken the > easy way out, by not being judgemental about reported behaviour. > > In this case, I'd like to see th

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Lionel Dricot wrote: > > What is exactly the problem here? Sometimes some people are offended by > the content of planet GNOME? OK, it has always be the case but it's a > problem. A rare one but still a problem. > What effect will have deciding of rules, CoC or pu

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi, Lionel Dricot wrote: > How often do we have to deal with offended people? What energy will we > spend to deal with each case on a case by case basis? Answer is A. > > How much energy will we spend to try to design a law/rule that might fit > every use case and will be discussed each time we h

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

I'm against an enshrined code of conduct which suddenly kicks you out of GNOME, or gets you shunned. A Terms of Service for hosted sites which gets your account unsubscribed for that site might be better if it is very narrowly defined, e.g. no spamming, no porn, etc. However as we move into the r

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

That is why the proposal that I just put on the table explicitly talks only of official GNOME forums of communication which is, incidentally, exactly like a terms of service. 2009/11/25 john palmieri > I'm against an enshrined code of conduct which suddenly kicks you out of > GNOME, or gets you

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:03:47 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: > Hi, > > Lionel Dricot wrote: >> How often do we have to deal with offended people? What energy will we >> spend to deal with each case on a case by case basis? Answer is A. >> >> How much energy will we spend to try to design a law/rule th

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 12:05 -0500, john palmieri wrote: > I'm against an enshrined code of conduct which suddenly kicks you out > of GNOME, or gets you shunned. A Terms of Service for hosted sites > which gets your account unsubscribed for that site might be better if > it is very narrowly define

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi Stormy On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 09:36:41AM -0700, Stormy Peters wrote: > We are talking about GNOME hosted platforms. Planet GNOME, > blogs.gnome.organd the GNOME mailing lists are all forums we host and > I think we can (and > do) expect a certain standard of conduct on them. For example, if so

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > Hi Stormy > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 09:36:41AM -0700, Stormy Peters wrote: > > We are talking about GNOME hosted platforms. Planet GNOME, > > blogs.gnome.organd the GNOME mailing lists are all forums we host and > > I think we can (and

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi, Lionel Dricot wrote: > Do you think that many people were turned out of the GNOME community > because of an hostile experience? I don't think so. (I might be wrong, I > just never met anybody that has a bad experience). Some names of good contributors who have drifted away from GNOME, at lea

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > I (fully) agree with John here. > > The lawyer-talk proposal of Jason is a no for me personally. > > It's also not the document that I've put my name under when I signed the > Code of Conduct any longer if that amendment is indeed added. >

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 12:13 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Philip Van Hoof > wrote: > I (fully) agree with John here. > > The lawyer-talk proposal of Jason is a no for me personally. > > It's also not the document that I

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > I don't like the entire intention of enforcement. > The intention is improving our community quality. The method is what you disagree with. What alternative method would you propose? ___ foundat

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Dave Neary wrote: > Hi, > > Lionel Dricot wrote: > > Do you think that many people were turned out of the GNOME community > > because of an hostile experience? I don't think so. (I might be wrong, I > > just never met anybody that has a bad experience). > > Some

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Le mercredi 25 nov. 2009 à 10:35:46 (-0700), Stormy Peters a écrit: > When bad behaviour happens we talk about it a lot but nothing happens. I respectfully disagree. There have been cases on our lists where people did act like "Dicks", in ebassi's words, and they have been frankly and openly said

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi, Dodji Seketeli wrote: > Moreover if you informally compare the tone of the discussions on our forum, > I am > not sure it's any "worse" than, say on the linux kernel mailing list. But > at least on the lkml, if you misbehave, you are likely to feel the pressure > quite directly. Are you sure

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

I'm trying to stay out of the discussion at least today. But: On 11/25/2009 12:49 PM, Dave Neary wrote: Hi, Lionel Dricot wrote: Do you think that many people were turned out of the GNOME community because of an hostile experience? I don't think so. (I might be wrong, I just never met anybod

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 12:13 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Philip Van Hoof >> wrote: >>         I (fully) agree with John here. >> >>         The lawyer-talk proposal of Jason is a no for me personally.

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Le mercredi 25 nov. 2009 à 19:39:13 (+0100), Dave Neary a écrit: > Hi, > > Dodji Seketeli wrote: > > Moreover if you informally compare the tone of the discussions on our > > forum, I am > > not sure it's any "worse" than, say on the linux kernel mailing list. But > > at least on the lkml, if you

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:35:46AM -0700, Stormy Peters wrote: > When bad behaviour happens we talk about it a lot but nothing happens. As > Dave says, people (good contributors in many cases) just leave. I know of this first hand in Dave's own case, where he left the GIMP project due to issues wi

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 11/25/2009 01:50 PM, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: Alternative proposal: lets deal with the problem at hand and get our story straight about what is planet.gnome.org, what can be posted there (i.e. no porn and vulgar language etc.) and how we can help to enforce a reasonably exact policy on an ex

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > To make the discussion more practical, lets take one real incident of the > past: Murray's blog re Jeff. It did not include vulgar language. It did > include exaggerations that turned into libel. Now how does any proposed > solution de

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 11/25/2009 02:18 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Behdad Esfahbod mailto:beh...@behdad.org>> wrote: To make the discussion more practical, lets take one real incident of the past: Murray's blog re Jeff. It did not include vulgar language. It did incl

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > On 11/25/2009 02:18 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Behdad Esfahbod > > wrote: >> >>To make the discussion more practical, lets take one real incident >>of the past: Murr

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi Dave, I thought that those members evolved naturally. Life is changing, so are interests and priorities. I was a proud Ubuntu member myself before coming to GNOME. Not because of the Ubuntu community (au contraire) but because my interests have changed. It has to be added that, sometimes, some

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi Lucas, On Wed 25 Nov 2009 13:48, Lucas Rocha writes: > In the context of GNOME Foundation, it's really hard to argue about > how we expect our members to behave if there is no official guidelines > that members are supposed to comply with. The GNOME Code of Conduct[1] > has been serving very

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 11/25/2009 05:13 PM, Andy Wingo wrote: It's only IRC and DDL that are really the outliers, it seems, and there there is enough social pressure, combined with ignore/kill lists, that I don't really see all the fuss. And foundation list? Just saying each maintainer should solve this on their

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 11/25/2009 02:33 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote: I understand your point but I do think it would have made Jeff feel a little better, even if it were someone else that referred the event to the MC. In any case, I think we are straying slight from what we actually want: to prevent such attacks fr

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

>1. People speak on their own behalf, not on behalf of GNOME. Unless they > ARE talking on behalf of GNOME (say, board, release team, etc), On things like the planet that can be addressed by suitable tags and styling (as could "inappropriate" content - if there is a 'rant filter' option or s

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

Hi Behdad, On Wed 25 Nov 2009 23:19, Behdad Esfahbod writes: > On 11/25/2009 05:13 PM, Andy Wingo wrote: >> It's only IRC and DDL that are really the outliers, it seems, and there >> there is enough social pressure, combined with ignore/kill lists, that I >> don't really see all the fuss. > > An

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > I also like to see two more ideas added to CoC: > > - Learn to agree to disagree. > > - Criticize ideas, not people presenting them. > > > Back to the Murray case, with my recommendation, everything would have > happened the way it did.

Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

On 11/25/2009 05:57 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote: Well, I withdraw my proposed amendment to the CoC as there has been no support for it and I'm not entirely happy with it as written, either. But, while I agree that the above would be welcome additions to the CoC, I don't think this helps us answer