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 1JCbTd-0004nc-Gq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:00:17 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E7A7E052B; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:00:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D0DE0511 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:00:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.213] (unknown [74.92.132.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836A265127 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:00:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting From: Ferris McCormick To: Gentoo Developers Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-iUivFgo5BPi6ncYgzu6g" Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:00:12 +0000 Message-Id: <1199887212.23272.59.camel@liasis.inforead.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 X-Archives-Salt: 8d812373-206e-4bdc-80c2-d9b3fadee6b8 X-Archives-Hash: 6e456061e975cd2ad8e14ff7b5c2dddb --=-iUivFgo5BPi6ncYgzu6g Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I can't respond to the following in proper form, because it came in during a 4 hour window when the mail server was bouncing all my gentoo-xx@gentoo.org email (my server didn't like the list server move, so I changed server, too). Anyway, Chris Gianelloni wrote at Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:03:25 -0800 =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=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=3D=3D On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 19:59 +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote: > 3) Most devrel requests seem really to relate to CoC violations. Would > you like us to bounce those to the CoC people, process them using CoC > rules, or keep doing what we are doing now (generally, close them with a > note explaining why or mediate them)? (I'm talking about the "He's > being rude/sarcastic/disrespectful" sorts of things which really need to > be processed immediately and merit a warning or brief suspension if > anything.) How hard is it to realize that the CoC is a superset of DevRel (and other) policies? If someone breaks DevRel policy ("be good to each other") that also happens to be a CoC rule and someone reports it to DevRel, they should actually *do* something about it, rather than trying to pass it off onto someone else or spend months engaging in witless banter about whether there's even an issue or not. After all, when the CoC was enacted, never once was it said that it would override DevRel or otherwise make DevRel invalid. If someone comes to DevRel with a problem, you're supposed to try to work out the issue with them. It really is that simple. There's no need for some kind of territorial pissing match or passing the buck. Someone came to DevRel for help because they think DevRel can help them and it is DevRel's job to do so. The CoC was put in place to allow for catching bad behaviors *before* they would get to DevRel, without requiring someone to necessarily "report" the issue. Once a developer has reported an issue to DevRel, it's their job to work it using their own policies, as it then becomes a DevRel issue. The two things serve somewhat different purposes. The CoC was designed to curb or prevent bad behavior, where DevRel's job is to prevent bad behavior from recurring, or taking disciplinary action when necessary for repeat offenders. =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=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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Chris, With all due respect, for some reason we don't have Proctors anymore to enf= orce the CoC. Thus, things we would expect the proctors to catch and handle und= er CoC get sent to devrel instead. All I am doing is wondering out loud (now that= CoC is coming alive again) if we should start processing these under CoC rules.= I'm asking Council because CoC belongs to Council, but I do not expect a ruling= , just perhaps an interesting discussion. See, these things can't be caught = before they get to devrel because you ensured there would be no one to catch them = --- you are the one who wanted to kill off the proctors, after all. I am asking a question as a member of the devrel confres subproject and as an interested developer. Please do not take off after devrel just because = I like to think out loud. CoC is a superset of the "be good to each other" guideline, but enforcement rules are quite different. Regards. Ferris --=20 Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel) --=-iUivFgo5BPi6ncYgzu6g Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBHhNNsQa6M3+I///cRAshRAJ9htxDDwG9BTb4/cqESdfVo+w/GqQCg5rVj 8uPa8BpxWGNOfi+swYqXgQo= =gQH5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-iUivFgo5BPi6ncYgzu6g-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list