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 1KLIkt-00074Y-DA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:22:19 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 72473E0294; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:22:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from QMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.56]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D762E0297 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:22:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from OMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.19]) by QMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id t1DX1Z00M0QuhwU562NHif; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:22:17 +0000 Received: from mail.twi-31o2.org ([24.6.98.17]) by OMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id t2ND1Z0020NWACg3N2NFsN; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:22:16 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=ni8Frk1T-iwA:10 a=MY_6DjmEkWsA:10 a=a7sLO028_9sHdwcTTRcA:9 a=BrLDfewLxiSEtjr-rEkA:9 a=bGA13Km457SscqRze-IA:7 a=lmomxpNlsZRz8aToPvARTQ7yRV4A:4 a=9w7fa0OCkgQA:10 a=WeOa-AV5lc8A:10 a=MxZ3bB5I4kYA:10 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.twi-31o2.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1988B4003; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:22:12 +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 towEHtpT8AV2; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:22:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from draco2 (orion.twi-31o2.org [192.168.0.11]) by mail.twi-31o2.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77E6E8B4002; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:22:05 +0000 (UTC) From: "Chrissy Fullam" To: "'gentoo-council'" , "'gentoo-project'" References: <20080714063554.GB5982@comet> <20080722063428.GB23164@aerie.halcy0n.com> <1216733634.1979.159.camel@liasis.inforead.com> In-Reply-To: <1216733634.1979.159.camel@liasis.inforead.com> Subject: RE: [gentoo-council] Extent of Code of Conduct enforcement Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:21:55 -0700 Message-ID: <41a601c8ec06$512e0af0$f38a20d0$@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: Acjr/5prIE9HPXRZQYqKXFuyPloUUwABPG+Q Content-Language: en-us X-Archives-Salt: 68147d71-fba8-4e95-915e-1eff86afcec6 X-Archives-Hash: 1692526fbb3579ea4e09826507126e96 > Ferris McCormick wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 02:34 -0400, Mark Loeser wrote: > > > Donnie Berkholz said: > > > Can people be entirely banned from Gentoo? > > > > > - Why would we do it? > > Because they are damaging the community and driving possible > > contributors aways. > > > Let me respond to this specifically. I have pretty strong views on this, > and I suspect they might reflect a minority opinion. > > I'm going to divide this into two cases, because I think the first one is > easy. First case is developers who leave or threaten to leave giving the > reason that "XXX (a developer or user) drove them away because of ...". > Second case is a sponsor who threatens to withdraw support "unless > something is done about XXX." > > In the first case, my reaction is absolute. The developer who threatens > to leave because of someone else is (1) making the judgment call that we > care if he leaves; (2) Is resorting to extortion to get rid of someone > else (or reign someone else in or whatever). At that point, I'd wish him > well in his future endeavors and start retirement process. I view giving > in to such a threat as at least as harmful as whatever or whoever > triggered it in the first place. This is based on my own background and > experiences, and others no doubt react differently. (1) I am bothered that as a member of devrel you state something that implies devrel doesn't care if a developer leaves. While we have personal opinions of people, devrel is expected to leave them at the door to our jobs. I care when people leave, I care to know why they leave (this gives us grounds for improvement which is what we should be seeking), and I care that people do what is really best for them. (2) You are making assumptions that people are resorting to extortion. I've known people who simply said I'm through and leaving, here is why, and they did so not to have someone try to win them back but rather so that the appropriate people knew the areas that may require investigation. Not everyone is a malicious ass trying to take advantage of people or ruin other people. > Now, there is a variation on this: The developer who resigns, citing > abuse as the reason. Here, the process has broken down. Believe it or > not, devrel and userrel will work with problems like this if we know there > are such problems to address. We are here to help, this is so very true, but devrel also recognizes the stereo type that we are labeled with as a result of the past actions of a variety of people within devrel, that being ineffective and not desiring to do anything. This is not the case of devrel today. We will do what it takes to appropriately address issues and if someone doesn't desire to participate in devrel then they are welcome to seek out other areas of Gentoo in which to participate. > For example, if you want me involved, best > is to contact me personally or open a bug assigned to me. > If you want someone else, do whatever that person prefers. If you contact a member of devrel directly then such a person will not be acting as a devrel official but rather as a peer seeking to help. This is quite alright and an option that anyone can exercise. The official means of seeking devrel assistance is quoted from our policy as follows: "To involve Developer Relations in your issue please send an email to devrel@gentoo.org or open a Bug and assign it to Developer Relations; either is acceptable. Please note that opening a bug is not necessary for mediation, however the developer may open a bug if he/she wishes to do so; opening a bug is mandatory if mediation efforts fail." > The second case is more delicate. It is still a form of extortion, but > conceivably with merit. I think the resolution requires negotiation with > the sponsor and the "problem child". If we can reach no agreement, I > suppose we have to do what seems best for the community. That will always > be a decision depending on each circumstance. A sponsor saying that they will withdraw unless we address XYZ is welcome to do just that. They are sponsors and not legally bound to us for a specified period of time. If the mutually beneficial relationship is no longer mutually beneficial then it indeed should end if there is no agreeable resolution. For example, I cannot condone firing a developer who we feel has not done something worthy of such punishment just to please a sponsor. However I have no objection to a sponsor stating something that causes us to review the situation and determine whether we do in fact agree that such a statement is in the best interest of Gentoo, just such a decision should not be made solely to keep a sponsor. I realize my opinion may not be popular there, but it's my own. ;-) Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations