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 1KTZUZ-0000ct-0N for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:39 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 84591E0209; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED78E0209 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:38 +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 9704A664F4; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 02:51:35 -0700 From: Donnie Berkholz To: Ferris McCormick Cc: gentoo-council Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Extent of Code of Conduct enforcement Message-ID: <20080814095135.GC6477@comet> References: <1216992299.10301.57.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="MnLPg7ZWsaic7Fhd" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1216992299.10301.57.camel@liasis.inforead.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Archives-Salt: fba62dd6-b42f-43ea-8c1f-e603e0e15d42 X-Archives-Hash: 180395be9b80c6c207c97f7d6b0171fa --MnLPg7ZWsaic7Fhd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 13:24 Fri 25 Jul , Ferris McCormick wrote: > Eventually, this was revised here: > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-council/msg_ba125098c929ea31f34051dfb00= 9d436.xml > advantage that it did not require any approval at all, but it most > certainly *did* imply revisions to the Code of Conduct itself, because > effectively it stripped out any authority from the (non-existent) > proctors and instead identify a small group of people who would take > aside CoC violators (in private) and suggest they quit doing whatever > they were doing wrong. For the record here, my response to this was: >=20 > [quote] > '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.' > [/quote] >=20 > As best as I can tell, this proposal was *APPROVED*, and at 20080214, was= left like this: >=20 > =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 > Code of Conduct enforcement > --------------------------- > Promote individual devs responding to people who are being jerks. > Keep responses private, unless that person gets out of hand. >=20 > dberkholz will get things going. > To help or get advice, contact him. > =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 >=20 > I think the final intent was that Council expected the Code of Conduct > to be pretty much self-enforcing, driven by members of the community who > cared enough to take violators aside and calm them down, beat them over > the head, or whatever. >=20 > So, my question remains: Did this resolution ever make it into a > revision of the Code of Conduct or not. I thought it did, but can't > find it. If it didn't, it probably should, and this entire discussion > should be interpreted with that intent. Let me share my interpretation to make sure we're on the same page. The=20 whole idea here is that there is no new official global response team=20 like the proctors. Nothing changed about the abilities & authorities of individual groups=20 that were already in charge of their specific areas. > In passing, I'll note something else. The underlying assumption of the > entire Code of Conduct threads over five months last year was that: >=20 > [quote from Donnie] >=20 > A primary focus of CoC enforcement is deterrence from continued=20 > violation, so permanent action is unnecessary. Thus, what seems=20 > necessary is a way to take rapid, private, temporary action. >=20 > [/quote from Donnie] >=20 > The focus here was on errant developers, but by validating userrel's role= in > all of this, we know it now explicitly applies to the entire community. > However, the underlying "immediate and temporary" assumptions still apply, > I would think. Anything else would be a fundamental change as best as I > can tell, and discussion should be framed and clearly understood on that > context. It's always desirable for people to change their behavior, but=20 unfortunately it doesn't always happen. Here, the first sentence you quoted is the important one. The second=20 sentence only deals with the deterrence part of the first sentence.=20 Nothing is addressed about the permanent action, because that email was=20 about creating a new proctors-like group, and devrel/userrel already=20 existed for permanent action. --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com --MnLPg7ZWsaic7Fhd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkikACcACgkQXVaO67S1rtvYjACgoldvuOabnlpaVdfLl2zrj/EI S4gAoO2MAnR4WU9olWUzSxePiDPrqvI3 =lx7i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --MnLPg7ZWsaic7Fhd--