From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KHJVi-0005uS-FY for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:22:10 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D17E6E0324; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:22:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost02.mail.mbr-roch.zen.net.uk [212.23.3.141]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D6EE0320; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:22:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.141] (helo=spike) by smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KHJVe-0001na-Ni; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:22:06 +0000 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:21:55 +0100 From: Roy Bamford Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] User Relations authority To: Ferris McCormick Cc: Donnie Berkholz , gentoo-council , gentoo-project In-Reply-To: <1215780445.12648.377.camel@liasis.inforead.com> (from fmccor@gentoo.org on Fri Jul 11 13:47:25 2008) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.3.22 Message-Id: <1215786125.2915.1@spike> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-Smarthost02-IP: [62.3.120.141] X-Archives-Salt: adf2e01a-c9ae-4ece-bd54-b9a56f74d15e X-Archives-Hash: faa3925bf812fb7064972a4403762b01 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2008.07.11 13:47, Ferris McCormick wrote: [snip] > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Now, I'm going to change the topic slightly and explain what I think > the > context of Jorge's proposals is. I ask him to set me straight if I'm > getting it wrong. >=20 > As I understand it, these proposals fit into the context of the Code > of > Conduct, and no matter what you say, I am certain that the Code of > Conduct was put in place to address problems as they occur in order > cut > off and prevent brush fires. In this context, his permanent ban > proposals would be the final sanction after quite a long run of > working > with someone through the Code of Conduct itself. And I have never > seen > anything suggesting nor anyone proposing that the Code of Conduct has > a > long reach into the past to apply to someone now. Code of Conduct > addresses current conduct; it does not address past conduct except in > the context of what is going on now. I ask Roy or Jorge please to > correct me on this. [snip] All, - From memory, the CoC was not intended to change *rels authority or=20 scope of action in any way at all. It was intended to document some=20 behaviours that anyone at all could use as a reference to remind other=20 participants in a medium that they we not behaving as other users had a right to expect. I recall it was based on some of the concepts behind=20 freenodes catalyst idea. See dberkholzs' earlier ideas on CoC enforcement - anyone can do it. There was no statute of limitations implied with the creation of the=20 CoC. While the CoC was being drafted, it was recognised that many CoC=20 breaches come from anger/emotion/misunderstandings and their writers=20 not sleeping on a post before they make it.=20 It was also recognised that *rel take in comparison to these=20 outbursts, a long time to act. The Proctors was created at the same=20 time as the CoC as a rapid reaction group to deal with rapidly=20 developing situations and calm things down, leaving *rel to deal with=20 the persistent offenders in slower time as they always had done. In short, the publishing of the CoC changed nothing, it only documented something that had always been implied previously.=20 Note that the Forums mods and #gentoo channel ops had been enforcing=20 the standards in the CoC long before it was written. It follows that=20 the CoC is just documenting a part of what had been Gentoos' common=20 law.=20 - --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners trustees -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkh3bI0ACgkQTE4/y7nJvatqlwCdF2Revmxj0s9PYyBqu5MIVpX7 fKYAoP1zykLd9CI71nKINs9QJlmzyoU8 =3D0Fg9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list