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 1KIPLa-0007oB-0F for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:48:14 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 31AB7E0478; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:48:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9DC3E0478 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:48:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.213] (unknown [74.92.132.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4C166E24; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:48:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Extent of Code of Conduct enforcement From: Ferris McCormick To: Alec Warner Cc: gentoo-council In-Reply-To: References: <20080714063554.GB5982@comet> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-0wfp+J1Y4smYp60eVd+u" Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:48:06 +0000 Message-Id: <1216046886.12648.420.camel@liasis.inforead.com> 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 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 X-Archives-Salt: e6a0b1be-9047-4954-8440-a3417f2d6526 X-Archives-Hash: 33c7df15722ae07ed9aa2c88bd4150e1 --=-0wfp+J1Y4smYp60eVd+u Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 08:23 +0000, Alec Warner wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Donnie Berkholz w= rote: > > Can people be entirely banned from Gentoo? >=20 > no >=20 > > > > - What would such a ban include? Some ideas -- the person could not: > > - Post to any gentoo mailing list; >=20 > technically feasible >=20 > > - Post to gentoo bugzilla; >=20 > technically feasible >=20 > > - Participate in #gentoo- IRC channels; >=20 > 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. >=20 > > - Contribute to gentoo (hence my corner case of a security fix) except > > perhaps through a proxy; >=20 > nothing stops them from contributing to the community; it is not as if > Gentoo controls all outlets anyway. >=20 Although why would they want to? > > > > - Why would we do it? >=20 > To prevent gentoo from being messed with by people who have routinely > proven that they are unfit to assist the distribution. >=20 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? >=20 > Userrel. >=20 > > > > - Would it be reversible? What conditions would cause this? >=20 > I assume the person would ask to return or have someone vouch for them. >=20 > > > > Since the banned person couldn't participate in Gentoo, we'd never > > know whether anything changed. >=20 > I would think that if the person wanted to come back they would: >=20 > 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. >=20 > > > > - How would one appeal this? Would there be a chance to respond before > > the ban? >=20 > Since the ban would require some amount of history I don't see any > particular reason not to solicit feedback from said person. >=20 I disagree. I think everyone deserves to be heard. After all, one of Gentoo's guiding principles reads: =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 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). =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 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? >=20 > If moderating gentoo-dev obsoletes this concept then I think the > concept itself is flawed (gentoo is more than gentoo-dev) >=20 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=20 > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Donnie > > > > Donnie Berkholz > > Developer, Gentoo Linux > > Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com > > --=20 Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) --=-0wfp+J1Y4smYp60eVd+u Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkh7ZyYACgkQQa6M3+I///dNlgCg39Mur5TOrexaDFd6c4V+iIjs PR8An3g2fTJXnjjTe3B6du7eXrTqGCou =P9Vx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-0wfp+J1Y4smYp60eVd+u-- -- gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list