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 1KHABl-0002xm-9Z for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:24:57 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 73681E0521; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:24:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C56E0521 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:24:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (c-71-193-142-160.hsd1.or.comcast.net [71.193.142.160]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F5B867E0D; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:24:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:24:53 -0700 From: Donnie Berkholz To: Ferris McCormick Cc: gentoo-council Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] User Relations authority Message-ID: <20080711042453.GA13630@comet> References: <20080710054946.GB8666@comet> <4875F740.8050206@gentoo.org> <1215698128.12648.290.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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1215698128.12648.290.camel@liasis.inforead.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Archives-Salt: e77b9f94-2bdb-43be-85ce-02a5c82d084d X-Archives-Hash: 74d95d43dbb0fb294872e9c6da0de897 --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 13:55 Thu 10 Jul , Ferris McCormick wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 11:49 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > > To summarize, my proposal was that we should have a method to "keep > > away" people that do nothing but cause continuous issues - this is about > > the "poisonous people" that are long-time and repeated offenders. > > As I've stated back then "I believe that the greatest reward anyone can > > have to participate in Gentoo is getting credit for work done on Gentoo. > > As such, as a last measure, we must be ready to deny such contribution > > from banned users." >=20 > I don't think I've ever seen anyone at all who does nothing but=20 > continually causs "issues" and so qualifies as poisonous. We have a=20 > large community and everyone is abrasive at times, and everyone gets=20 > abuse at times (even me, but probably not from people you have in mind=20 > as "poisonous", if you have any). But I consider this just a normal=20 > part of doing business and can't imagine what it would take to get me=20 > to make a formal complaint about it. >=20 > For example, I have had little contact with Linus Torvalds, but I have > had a fair amount of contact with David Miller (davem --- the sparc > kernel developer). I'm pretty sure that davem would seem more > "poisonous" to us than anyone we've ever seen in Gentoo, and by > reputation, Linus makes davem look like a pussy cat. (Although davem > seems to be mellowing.) But I rather doubt that if for some reason > either one started participating in Gentoo that we'd consider banning > them or refusing their contributions. :) I agree that the Linux kernel community has different standards and=20 expectations than the Gentoo community, and that's exactly the point.=20 You act within the context of your community. I don't care if people in=20 northern Canada practice cannibalism, it's not OK around these parts. > > | 4. Here's what I think is meant by a complete ban. *These are only = my > > | own inferences from reading between the lines and trying to put > > | different comments together in some coherent fashion.* > > | Under some rather unclear conditions, some combination of > > | devrel/userrel/trustees/infra could decide to impose a complete, > > | permanent ban on a member (user or, I suppose developer) of our > > | community. This would have the following effects: > >=20 > > Some people seem to support that userrel can make such decisions on its > > own. As I've stated, as an userrel member, I was willing to involve > > other teams. We also need to agree to which body should appeals be sent. >=20 > I would not support giving userrel that authority or userrel+devrel that > authority. Now, I oppose this absolutely. But in general I don't thing > any group(s) in gentoo should have such sweeping authority to make such > major decisions secretely in private. If we want to impose such a ban > on someone, we really should have the courage and resolve to work in > public. I dislike your use of emotional words to imply that anyone you disagree=20 with is cowardly. > > My comment about this has always been that in extreme cases and if we > > have a close partnership with upstream, we might want to share with them > > our decision and let them judge for themselves if the actions that made > > such person be banned on Gentoo are relevant to them or not. > >=20 > Why? It's hardly our concern who participates upstream. I agree with this, as I mentioned above with the context of the=20 community. > > The point here is that such a decision is not terminal. If people feel > > more comfortable about it, don't call it permanent bans, but call it a > > ban until further notice. >=20 > What's the practical difference? And why not make it something sensible > and definite? The authority to lift an indefinite ban most likely rests > with whoever imposed it in the first place, and that doesn't provide for > much. I dislike the implication that anything else is not sensible. > > I assume what you mean here is that there would be no attempt of > > mediation with said person. As my proposal states this is an *extreme* > > decision meant only for *long-time* and *repeated* offenders. When we > > get there, there's no possibility for mediation - that's something that > > would have been tried a long time before we get there. >=20 > See above. And as i said, I've never seen anyone who fits such a > profile, so perhaps we're spending a lot of time here defining how we > treat the empty set. I think it's clear that your opinion does not necessarily represent the=20 opinions of everyone else in Gentoo, so arguing that your empty set is=20 Gentoo's empty set is not valid. > > | 8. [Argument] I note that we are likely to institute some form of > > | possible moderation for the gentoo-dev mailing list (presumably based= on > > | Code of Conduct violations), and if we do that, it effectively satisf= ies > > | the intent of any absolute ban, but is not nearly so traumatic to the > > | system. I note that this is a minority view among those who have > > | discussed this. > >=20 > > Ferris, I do hope the moderation will prevent so many abuses on the mls, > > but it alone won't change people's mindsets and actions. Although posts > > can be moderated, it doesn't mean that people will stop trying to send > > abusive mails and that a few might even get to the lists. Also, it > > doesn't address irc, bugzilla and other mediums abuse. >=20 > If we have your hypothetical poisonous person running around loose > somewhere and put him (or her) into a must-be-moderated list for > gentoo-dev, the problem there should disappear because posts will be > shunted to the moderators. #gentoo-dev is a more general concern than > just a few specific people and falls generally under Code of Conduct for > immediate correction. Bugzilla looks like a bigger problem than it is, > because when it explodes it can be spectacular. But it is not limited > to one or two people, either (even I have lost control on bugzilla, and > I generally appear pretty calm and rational, I think). I don't think moderation is the answer, because it's a very small group=20 of people who become regular, recurring problems. > Jorge, you know, if you and I were both forced to come up with a list of > five poisonous people to consider for application of such a ban, I > suspect their intersection might be empty. What then? >=20 > It is my view that both userrel and devrel may enforce the Code of > Conduct, I agree. > but also Code of Conduct should be limited to quick response to=20 > immediate situations. I do not agree. Just because something happened in the past does not=20 mean it never happened and should not be considered. > I think devrel and userrel are the wrong bodies to be rooting around in > the past if that's what you are proposing. Neither of us is set up to > do that. We act on current behavior, and if discipline is warranted, > then we can take to past behavior for guidance if we wish. I don't > think anyone in Gentoo currently has the charter to look at the > community and say "X has been causing trouble long enough --- let's just > boot X." Nor do I think we want anyone to have such authority --- > surely we're more tolerant and flexible than that. Again I dislike your implications that anyone who would act on past=20 behavior is intolerant and inflexible. Please stop using implications=20 like this. --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkh24JUACgkQXVaO67S1rttYKgCg+Uh+A4gvJnVZ6bguVUc/lcUl WusAoO9lT6qUQl1xkbiPLfTcthVnkV2T =foxK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q-- -- gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list