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 1KLIXW-0004k7-UJ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:08:31 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E24F5E02C8; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:08:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from QMTA06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.56]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772C5E02C8 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:08:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from OMTA08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.12]) by QMTA06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id szAu1Z0030FhH24A628UnJ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:08:28 +0000 Received: from mail.twi-31o2.org ([24.6.98.17]) by OMTA08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id t28S1Z00G0NWACg8U28THe; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:08:28 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=sqYqLFAhjWkA:10 a=-l4HkVeJ4JIA:10 a=7mOBRU54AAAA:8 a=D5X0jXc7yAtR6zCGXsUA:9 a=x7ovuf5UbjNWN9DCK2UA:9 a=ADawuAymqrYMKpmVdVYA:7 a=xwsN2LKu7NegDoq0aDPZ6NgpifYA:4 a=WeOa-AV5lc8A:10 a=MxZ3bB5I4kYA:10 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.twi-31o2.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E9B8B4003; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:08:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at twi-31o2.org Received: from mail.twi-31o2.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gravity.twi-31o2.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VjOB6j1huN5C; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:08:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from draco2 (orion.twi-31o2.org [192.168.0.11]) by mail.twi-31o2.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D1DB8B4002; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:08:22 +0000 (UTC) From: "Chrissy Fullam" To: , "'gentoo-project'" References: <20080710054946.GB8666@comet> <1215692772.12648.239.camel@liasis.inforead.com> <20080722064325.GC23164@aerie.halcy0n.com> In-Reply-To: <20080722064325.GC23164@aerie.halcy0n.com> Subject: RE: [gentoo-council] User Relations authority Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:08:12 -0700 Message-ID: <41a301c8ec04$6674e3e0$335eaba0$@org> 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcjrxkVfygnEPFFoTJ+OV7qkREnYsAAO8N5Q Content-Language: en-us X-Archives-Salt: bbe4729f-cfae-42e0-abfc-e030264cfb51 X-Archives-Hash: bfdb0d5e200532febd78eaf1757bf707 > Mark Loeser wrote: > > Ferris McCormick said: > > > On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 22:49 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > From this month's agenda: > > > > > > User Relations authority > > > ------------------------ > > > > > > Ferris asks: Does userrel have the authority to enforce the Code of > > > Conduct on users in the same way devrel does for developers? > > I didn't even remember that I had asked this, but here are my thoughts. > > 1. Yes, Userrel has (or should have) that authority; > Cool, we agree that userrel has this authority. > > > 2. But for both devrel and userrel, the Code of Conduct loses almost > > all its impact unless response is immediate --- CoC's intent, I think, > > is to help keep the mailing lists and #gentoo-dev channel on track > > pretty much in real time. I know this was the original idea behind > > it, and this was one reason we felt we needed people outside devrel to > > help enforce it (devrel is not set up for immediate responses); > > I think we should then make it so that userrel and devrel have the > authority and/or power to respond immediately to problems in real time. > Why isn't devrel set up to respond to problems "real time"? I believe when fmccor states that 'devrel is not set up for immediate responses' he is referring to the fact that devrel is a small team without members in every major time zone. That alone makes it hard to have an immediate reaction to something. For example fmccor and myself are in the states, it is less likely that we will be actively online at 03h reading -dev emails. Such a time would be more appropriately covered by a few folks in the EU. An increase in recruiting that led to additional devrel staffing would assist in this area so the problem is NOT without a resolution. However I do disagree with fmccor on the topic of CoC is for only immediate response to an action. Let's be realistic here, if you did something yesterday it does not mean that it is no longer a bad thing and that your slate should be wiped clean today. I see nothing wrong with pursuing an issue that took place a few days ago. I would agree with fmccor if he meant we should not wait four weeks to discuss with the person or suddenly punish the person for a CoC violation that took place, for example, four weeks ago. Though I see nothing wrong with talking to such a person and saying something to effect of "look, that was wrong, you know it, do it again and we may need to pursue disciplinary action." > > 5. I am not sure where the current Code of Conduct document is, but > > I'll volunteer to help update it to bring it into line with how we > > wish to use it and to help clarify who has what authority under it, > > and that sort of thing. I have come to support it, and I'd like to > > help make it more effectively used in the rather narrow context for > > which it was designed before we consider extending its reach. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml The link is readily available off the Council project page. I appreciate fmccor's volunteering for doing the actual editing of the document. I cant really understand what he means when he says we must revise it before we consider modifying it, but suspect that was just a slip in thinking. I agree that we should revise it as our needs change, which is also why the disclaimer was put on that page to indicate that the document would always be subject to growth and revision. > > 6. For example, I think we could put some sort of limited moderation > > onto the -dev mailing list, citing the current Code of Conduct as > > authority, any time we wanted. Makes sense. > > And I do not think the Code of Conduct > > as currently envisioned has much reach into the past (one or two days, > > probably; one or two weeks, perhaps; one or two months, no; one or two > > years, certainly not). > So you wish to limit the reach of its timeframe? Could you please > elaborate on what you mean here? I'm not sure what you are trying to > express. Some things take time so let's think about this. Say someone is on vacation and unresponsive to communication attempts for two weeks. Doesn't mean that the attempts were not made nor that the person should come back and say "hey it's been two weeks, you cant touch me now." There are lots of variables to be considered and this is why the CoC was created the way it was, without absolute clarity in every regard because doing so would have made it a 40 page document written in a legal sense that most of us wouldn't want to read. Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations