[gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[Donnie Berkholz]

Hi all,

I'm proposing to start CoC enforcement in a simple manner that doesn't 
require approval of any sort, and I'd like to discuss it at the council 
meeting to get your feedback.

What I want to do is build a core culture of people who refuse to 
tolerate assholes. We can do this by getting together a small group who 
will reply to any gentoo-dev posts or #gentoo-dev comments by people who 
are being jerks, telling them that they're being a jerk and not replying 
to the substance of the jerk's post at all. Replies to the substance of 
a post would come separately or not at all. Having a group of people 
reply to hostile posters should begin rebuilding a culture that doesn't 
tolerate that type of action.

People who are consistently jerks are incompetent developers and should 
be treated as such.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[Luca Barbato]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm proposing to start CoC enforcement in a simple manner that doesn't 
> require approval of any sort, and I'd like to discuss it at the council 
> meeting to get your feedback.
> 
> What I want to do is build a core culture of people who refuse to 
> tolerate assholes. We can do this by getting together a small group who 
> will reply to any gentoo-dev posts or #gentoo-dev comments by people who 
> are being jerks, telling them that they're being a jerk and not replying 
> to the substance of the jerk's post at all. Replies to the substance of 
> a post would come separately or not at all. Having a group of people 
> reply to hostile posters should begin rebuilding a culture that doesn't 
> tolerate that type of action.

Sounds quite a good plan. We started as a quite cooperative distribution
 even with annoying upstreams. We should go back to our roots.\

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1401 bytes --]


On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 02:13 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm proposing to start CoC enforcement in a simple manner that doesn't 
> require approval of any sort, and I'd like to discuss it at the council 
> meeting to get your feedback.
> 
> What I want to do is build a core culture of people who refuse to 
> tolerate assholes. We can do this by getting together a small group who 
> will reply to any gentoo-dev posts or #gentoo-dev comments by people who 
> are being jerks, telling them that they're being a jerk and not replying 
> to the substance of the jerk's post at all. Replies to the substance of 
> a post would come separately or not at all. Having a group of people 
> reply to hostile posters should begin rebuilding a culture that doesn't 
> tolerate that type of action.
> 
> People who are consistently jerks are incompetent developers and should 
> be treated as such.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie

Nice idea and worth a try.  I have one concern.  Since we are talking
CoC here, I'd like to emphasise that "assholeness" should be determined
within the guidelines of the CoC.  Not by some person's own conception
of "assholeness" --- I'd hate to see a flame war about just who is being
the asshole in any particular instance.

Regards,
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 12:36 Thu 14 Feb     , Ferris McCormick wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 02:13 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > What I want to do is build a core culture of people who refuse to 
> > tolerate assholes. We can do this by getting together a small group 
> > who will reply to any gentoo-dev posts or #gentoo-dev comments by 
> > people who are being jerks, telling them that they're being a jerk 
> > and not replying to the substance of the jerk's post at all. Replies 
> > to the substance of a post would come separately or not at all. 
> > Having a group of people reply to hostile posters should begin 
> > rebuilding a culture that doesn't tolerate that type of action.
> > 
> > People who are consistently jerks are incompetent developers and 
> > should be treated as such.
> 
> Nice idea and worth a try.  I have one concern.  Since we are talking 
> CoC here, I'd like to emphasise that "assholeness" should be 
> determined within the guidelines of the CoC.  Not by some person's own 
> conception of "assholeness" --- I'd hate to see a flame war about just 
> who is being the asshole in any particular instance.

You make a good point. The CoC [1] is subject to some level of 
interpretation, and I think that these two provisions pretty much 
provide for what I'm suggesting:

  Be courteous. Though respect is earned, it must start somewhere. 
  Respect someones right for their own opinion and acknowledge that they 
  do deserve a measure of politeness in your response.

  Respectfully disagree with or challenge other members. The operative 
  word here is respectfully.

One thought I've had is that once we get this small group of people, we 
could talk in an IRC channel about whether a particular instance 
qualifies before responding.

Thanks,
Donnie

1. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml
-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 256 bytes --]

Sounds all very reasonable to me (both Donnies idea as well as Ferris'
point).

cheers,
	Wernfried


-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[Ned Ludd]

On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 09:31 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 12:36 Thu 14 Feb     , Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 02:13 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > What I want to do is build a core culture of people who refuse to 
> > > tolerate assholes. We can do this by getting together a small group 
> > > who will reply to any gentoo-dev posts or #gentoo-dev comments by 
> > > people who are being jerks, telling them that they're being a jerk 
> > > and not replying to the substance of the jerk's post at all. Replies 
> > > to the substance of a post would come separately or not at all. 
> > > Having a group of people reply to hostile posters should begin 
> > > rebuilding a culture that doesn't tolerate that type of action.
> > > 
> > > People who are consistently jerks are incompetent developers and 
> > > should be treated as such.
> > 
> > Nice idea and worth a try.  I have one concern.  Since we are talking 
> > CoC here, I'd like to emphasise that "assholeness" should be 
> > determined within the guidelines of the CoC.  Not by some person's own 
> > conception of "assholeness" --- I'd hate to see a flame war about just 
> > who is being the asshole in any particular instance.
> 
> You make a good point. The CoC [1] is subject to some level of 
> interpretation, and I think that these two provisions pretty much 
> provide for what I'm suggesting:
> 
>   Be courteous. Though respect is earned, it must start somewhere. 
>   Respect someones right for their own opinion and acknowledge that they 
>   do deserve a measure of politeness in your response.
> 
>   Respectfully disagree with or challenge other members. The operative 
>   word here is respectfully.
> 
> One thought I've had is that once we get this small group of people, we 
> could talk in an IRC channel about whether a particular instance 
> qualifies before responding.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> 
> 1. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml


So in other words.. proctors all over again..

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 11:39 Thu 14 Feb     , Ned Ludd wrote:
> So in other words.. proctors all over again..

No, this is just people telling other people how they're being jerks. It 
doesn't have anything to do with any sort of official team calling down 
the wrath of God.

It happens already, but not enough. I'd just like to see that increase 
by getting a small group of people actively doing it to encourage others 
to do the same.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[Ned Ludd]

On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 11:44 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 11:39 Thu 14 Feb     , Ned Ludd wrote:
> > So in other words.. proctors all over again..
> 
> No, this is just people telling other people how they're being jerks. It 
> doesn't have anything to do with any sort of official team calling down 
> the wrath of God.
> 
> It happens already, but not enough. I'd just like to see that increase 
> by getting a small group of people actively doing it to encourage others 
> to do the same.

Umm so yeah. That's still more or less what proctors role was. I'm sure
you can get that very same group of people to help out here.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 12:03 Thu 14 Feb     , Ned Ludd wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 11:44 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 11:39 Thu 14 Feb     , Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > So in other words.. proctors all over again..
> > 
> > No, this is just people telling other people how they're being jerks. It 
> > doesn't have anything to do with any sort of official team calling down 
> > the wrath of God.
> > 
> > It happens already, but not enough. I'd just like to see that increase 
> > by getting a small group of people actively doing it to encourage others 
> > to do the same.
> 
> Umm so yeah. That's still more or less what proctors role was. I'm sure
> you can get that very same group of people to help out here.

My hope is that with no team of people assigned to doing this stuff, we 
can actually build a culture and get more people participating rather 
than having "the people who do that stuff" and everyone else.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[Roy Bamford]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2008.02.14 20:08, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 12:03 Thu 14 Feb     , Ned Ludd wrote:

> > 
> > Umm so yeah. That's still more or less what proctors role was. I'm
> > sure you can get that very same group of people to help out here.
> 
> My hope is that with no team of people assigned to doing this stuff,
> we 
> can actually build a culture and get more people participating rather 
> than having "the people who do that stuff" and everyone else.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> -- 
> gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
> 

Donnie,

The cynic in me sees the secret-proctors project taking shape.
 
I have a great deal of empathy with the ideal. However, its better if 
these 'stop being a dickhead' messages come privately from a respected 
college than from a comparative stranger. 

Gentoo is big enough now so that many devs never work/speak with one 
another, which is a part of the problem you are trying to address here.

I don't think we need a group to do this - we already have one. The 
developer pool, we need to raise awareness. It needs publicity to 
encourage everyone to participate, something like a 'don't be a 
dickhead day'.


Ned,

I think very few ex-proctors would be jumping in for a second helping 
after the way they were supported by the council that created them.

- -- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
treecleaners

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHtKiFTE4/y7nJvasRApfMAKDlB0V2WKnt07QtheFXHTO8Twnf2gCfR3eT
C+aNli8dtZZF+kvw3+/GCAE=
=2R4N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[Ned Ludd]

On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 20:45 +0000, Roy Bamford wrote:

[snip]

> Ned,
> 
> I think very few ex-proctors would be jumping in for a second helping 
> after the way they were supported by the council that created them.

That's probably very true and I can't blame them.


-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 20:45 Thu 14 Feb     , Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2008.02.14 20:08, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > My hope is that with no team of people assigned to doing this stuff, 
> > we can actually build a culture and get more people participating 
> > rather than having "the people who do that stuff" and everyone else.
>
> The cynic in me sees the secret-proctors project taking shape.

No intentions of making this secret..

> I have a great deal of empathy with the ideal. However, its better if 
> these 'stop being a dickhead' messages come privately from a respected 
> college than from a comparative stranger. 
> 
> Gentoo is big enough now so that many devs never work/speak with one 
> another, which is a part of the problem you are trying to address here.
> 
> I don't think we need a group to do this - we already have one. The 
> developer pool, we need to raise awareness. It needs publicity to 
> encourage everyone to participate, something like a 'don't be a 
> dickhead day'.

Yes, I agree that we need to encourage everyone to participate. I'm 
simply trying to jumpstart that process to encourage people by example.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 11:44 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>   
>> On 11:39 Thu 14 Feb     , Ned Ludd wrote:
>>     
>>> So in other words.. proctors all over again..
>>>       
>> No, this is just people telling other people how they're being jerks. It 
>> doesn't have anything to do with any sort of official team calling down 
>> the wrath of God.
>>
>> It happens already, but not enough. I'd just like to see that increase 
>> by getting a small group of people actively doing it to encourage others 
>> to do the same.
>>     
>
> Umm so yeah. That's still more or less what proctors role was. I'm sure
> you can get that very same group of people to help out here.
>
>   
Ned,

speaking for myself, thanks, but no thanks.


-- 
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo -forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE

-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[Roy Bamford]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2008.02.14 10:13, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm proposing to start CoC enforcement in a simple manner that 
> doesn't
> 
> require approval of any sort, and I'd like to discuss it at the
> council 
> meeting to get your feedback.
> 
> What I want to do is build a core culture of people who refuse to 
> tolerate assholes. We can do this by getting together a small group
> who 
> will reply to any gentoo-dev posts or #gentoo-dev comments by people
> who 
> are being jerks, telling them that they're being a jerk and not
> replying 
> to the substance of the jerk's post at all. 
[snip]
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> -- 
> gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
> 

Donnie,

Reply privately or in channel for all to see?

Privately is definitely best, as long as there is time for the CoC 
offender to see it and think. However, that's also only ever reactive, 
to a single individual at a time.

On the forums, I would use a PM for such messages unless I needed to 
calm a thread, when I would make a general post, pointing out the poor 
conduct but not naming an individual. On IRC I would post in channel as 
you can never be sure a user reads a /query.

Are you aiming to address tantrums, long term poor conduct, or both?
The first needs a short sharp shock - delivered at the time of the 
incident or it loses its effectiveness, the latter can respond to a 
slower more drawn out process.

- -- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
treecleaners

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHtKLYTE4/y7nJvasRAouxAJ95MzDWF2CF61LjwUoDKjcU3ViVBwCgz1og
+yteIny7A1VCVuw92zleBeU=
=nGY2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC: informal enforcement

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 20:21 Thu 14 Feb     , Roy Bamford wrote:
> Reply privately or in channel for all to see?
> 
> Privately is definitely best, as long as there is time for the CoC 
> offender to see it and think. However, that's also only ever reactive, 
> to a single individual at a time.
> 
> On the forums, I would use a PM for such messages unless I needed to 
> calm a thread, when I would make a general post, pointing out the poor 
> conduct but not naming an individual. On IRC I would post in channel as 
> you can never be sure a user reads a /query.
> 
> Are you aiming to address tantrums, long term poor conduct, or both?
> The first needs a short sharp shock - delivered at the time of the 
> incident or it loses its effectiveness, the latter can respond to a 
> slower more drawn out process.

Those are good points. My biggest concern is long-term conduct. I wish 
we had some way to get data on how many people actually get emailed 
privately vs on-list.

I think that emailing people off-list is the safest approach. The 
problem with it is that it doesn't show anyone else reading the list 
what is unacceptable behavior.

Emailing people on-list is riskier, because it can humiliate them to 
some extent, but it does have the benefit of publicly teaching people 
the standards of our project.

What do you think of that?

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list