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 1KITau-0000Qe-Cs for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:20:20 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DEB3E04A8; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:20:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.libexec.de (omega.libexec.de [85.214.68.240]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26979E04A8 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:20:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.libexec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A2FD400F for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:16:11 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at libexec.de Received: from mail.libexec.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (omega.libexec.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5RK5mLal6sa3 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:16:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.60] (dslb-088-076-147-006.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.76.147.6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: tobias) by mail.libexec.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC1633FF5 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:16:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Extent of Code of Conduct enforcement From: Tobias Scherbaum To: gentoo-council In-Reply-To: <20080714063554.GB5982@comet> References: <20080714063554.GB5982@comet> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-AHgAWoZgCF5hCROYMvYG" Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:20:14 +0200 Message-Id: <1216063214.2588.28.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de> 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 2.22.3.1 X-Archives-Salt: d84e01d6-8317-4462-86ec-b8554526bab6 X-Archives-Hash: 41ac7eb737ca1b64aa4b3a4c51e526aa --=-AHgAWoZgCF5hCROYMvYG Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Can people be entirely banned from Gentoo? At least from a technical pov I tend to say "no". Implementing a "feature" we (as in Gentoo) cannot technically enforce is useless, as enforcing it would require lots of manpower and manual interaction which we need more urgently in lots of other areas of Gentoo. > - What would such a ban include? Some ideas -- the person could not: > - Post to any gentoo mailing list; > - Post to gentoo bugzilla; > - Participate in #gentoo- IRC channels;=20 > - Contribute to gentoo (hence my corner case of a security fix) except=20 > perhaps through a proxy; >=20 > - Why would we do it? don't know, I don't see the need. People play wanker on #gentoo -> they get banned from that channel. People play wanker in the forums -> they get a warning and finally their account will get locked. I think these mechanisms are quite effective and proved to be good (tm), creating a next step of a "full Gentoo ban" isn't needed (nor doable) from my pov. > - Under whose authority would it happen? As people who would be banned are no developers any more this clearly falls under Userrels authority. > - Would it be reversible? What conditions would cause this? It needs to be reversible, people change, their attitude changes. Therefore we would need to implement a process which allows every banned user (after a fixed timeframe following the ban) to let userrel re-check the ban. > Since the banned person couldn't participate in Gentoo, we'd never=20 > know whether anything changed. They could still talk to people on IRC or via mail - or request to re-check if their ban is still necessary or if they deserve a second chance as described above. > - How would one appeal this? Would there be a chance to respond before > the ban? As such a ban would require fast intervention to just stop people playing wankers we would need to have different steps of bans, temporary bans followed by a longer ban and permanent bans as the last resort. Having several steps (i.e. short bans for a few days or a week at last) before someone gets banned permanently there's no need to be able to appeal these decisions - except a permanent ban would require such a process being in place. > - Would moderating the gentoo-dev mailing list obsolete this concept? It wouldn't obsolete this concept, but for now I see no need to ban people from interacting with our (developer) community - besides that I question if such a ban would be technically doable. As we had the most problems with our dev-ml in the past (and we have other working mechanisms like operators on #gentoo or mods in forums already in place) putting the ml on moderation would help and *might* obsolete the need for bans if the implementation works and will be accepted. Tobias --=-AHgAWoZgCF5hCROYMvYG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkh7pu4ACgkQX2bdwDDA8AWWmACfcHGRJg0MTBn01pdvombLxcTM BHQAoK3WYeAJwJViNypCbzwR6bkHWOxv =voKU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-AHgAWoZgCF5hCROYMvYG-- -- gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list