Re: [gentoo-council] Extent of Code of Conduct enforcement

[Ferris McCormick <fmccor@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4029 bytes --]


On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 08:23 +0000, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Can people be entirely banned from Gentoo?
> 
> no
> 
> >
> > - What would such a ban include? Some ideas -- the person could not:
> >  - Post to any gentoo mailing list;
> 
> technically feasible
> 
> >  - Post to gentoo bugzilla;
> 
> technically feasible
> 
> >  - Participate in #gentoo- IRC channels;
> 
> technically infeasible.  Also a hard sell; traditionally gentoo-*
> channels that are not #gentoo-dev and #gentoo are owned and operated
> by gentoo subprojects with the permission of the gentoo reps.
> Enforcing a ban in all channels would be difficult.
> 
> >  - Contribute to gentoo (hence my corner case of a security fix) except
> >    perhaps through a proxy;
> 
> nothing stops them from contributing to the community; it is not as if
> Gentoo controls all outlets anyway.
> 
Although why would they want to?

> >
> > - Why would we do it?
> 
> To prevent gentoo from being messed with by people who have routinely
> proven that they are unfit to assist the distribution.
> 

That's a very strong statement.  I personally have never seen anyone I'd
categorize as "unfit to assist."

> >
> > - Under whose authority would it happen?
> 
> Userrel.
> 
> >
> > - Would it be reversible? What conditions would cause this?
> 
> I assume the person would ask to return or have someone vouch for them.
> 
> >
> >  Since the banned person couldn't participate in Gentoo, we'd never
> >  know whether anything changed.
> 
> I would think that if the person wanted to come back they would:
> 
>   Make an effort to contact Gentoo; It is not as if developers would
> not talk to this individual.
>   Gentoo itself would take this person back provisionally to ensure
> things were different.  This is
>   a case by case deal and I think is difficult to pin down.
> 
> >
> > - How would one appeal this? Would there be a chance to respond before
> >  the ban?
> 
> Since the ban would require some amount of history I don't see any
> particular reason not to solicit feedback from said person.
> 

I disagree.  I think everyone deserves to be heard.  After all, one of
Gentoo's guiding principles reads:

========================================================
Gentoo is open

Every aspect of Gentoo is and remains open. Gentoo does not benefit from
hiding any of its development processes (whether it is source code or
documentation, decisions or discussions, coordination or management).
=========================================================

This sort of thing certainly falls within that, I think (management if
nothing else, and certainly some aspect of Gentoo).



> >
> > - Would moderating the gentoo-dev mailing list obsolete this concept?
> 
> If moderating gentoo-dev obsoletes this concept then I think the
> concept itself is flawed (gentoo is more than gentoo-dev)
> 

That's why I keep saying we should at least give moderating gentoo-dev a
chance first.  Most "problems" are flame wars there, and I believe that
most flames involve more developers than non-developers.  #gentoo-dev is
sometimes a problem, but mostly brief outbursts resulting from frayed
tempers, and largely from developers.  Bugzilla is sometimes a problem,
but not all that often, and usually resulting from strongly held
technical disagreements or disagreements on who can make changes to a
some package (perceived poaching).

I really don't think it is in our interests to find a user or some users
to "make examples" of if less extreme measures can achieve what we
actually want (calmer gentoo-dev mostly).

Regards,
Ferris 
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Donnie
> >
> > Donnie Berkholz
> > Developer, Gentoo Linux
> > Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
> >
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]