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 1KGZQ3-00072Q-1u for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:09:15 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 55355E03E7; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:09:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D88FE03E7 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:09:13 +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 0F89067914; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:09:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for July From: Ferris McCormick To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20080709084013.GC684@comet> References: <20080701093002.CFAB6670F5@smtp.gentoo.org> <20080709084013.GC684@comet> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-KtJaTugBpbQXBrAVPGsy" Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:09:09 +0000 Message-Id: <1215608949.12648.205.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 2.12.3 X-Archives-Salt: 2bb4672c-5dbf-4c4f-bf28-d3f7c702e046 X-Archives-Hash: 6a3ffcc11f43d502ee7f1919b15a4145 --=-KtJaTugBpbQXBrAVPGsy Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 01:40 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 05:30 Tue 01 Jul , Mike Frysinger wrote: > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even > > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole > > Gentoo dev list to see. >=20 > Here's the proposed agenda. Please respond if I forgot something, it's=20 > unclear, or you have another suggestion. As before, since we have an=20 > agenda in advance we won't be holding an open floor. I'll try to clarify my second agenda item on an absolute ban. Also I might edit my private request to make it pure vanilla and send it out, too, so that people may cross check my summary if they wish. If people want that, please respond saying so. 1. Your summary in the agenda is a fair reading of my request. However, I don't think it's realistic to expect a decision within a week because I think instituting a policy and procedure allowing a complete ban forever from Gentoo requires at the least a change to the Code of Conduct and a review cycle for that. 2. I can't spell out exactly what people are thinking of when discussing absolute bans, because I get the sense that different people have different ideas about just what we would mean by that. So I think the first step is for someone who advocates such a procedure needs to spell out exactly what it would be and why we would do it and under whose authority, etc. As probably everyone knows, I am absolutely opposed to any such thing, so I am not the person to do this. 3. So, I don't think we can reach a decision on anything until we are all clear on what we are deciding on. 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: a. The person could post to no gentoo mailing list; b. The person could not post to gentoo bugzilla; c. The person could not participate in #gentoo- IRC channels (although this runs into conflict with individual channel policy); d. The person could not contribute to gentoo (hence my corner case of a security fix) except perhaps through a proxy; e. (Perhaps any upstream projects in which the person banned would be notified of the ban??? --- I'm not sure). Right now, I don't know anymore if what I just described is what is being proposed or not. 5. I am told that nothing is forever, and that if whatever problems triggered such a ban were corrected, the ban might be lifted. I note, however, that since the banned person could not participate in Gentoo things, as a practical matter we'd never know if anything was corrected or not. (Except through 3rd parties.) 6. Presumably, all of this would be done in secret and whoever is being hit by such a ban would have no opportunity to respond before the ban's imposition. I suppose there would be a right to appeal to council, assuming council took no part in deciding on the ban. 7. [Argument] I view this as a pretty major change in how Gentoo operates. So someone needs to clarify my inferences in paragraph 4, and then we should think very carefully about it before allowing for any such practice. 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 satisfies 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. Donnie, I don't know if that clarifies anything or just makes things more confusing. It's the best I can come up with. Regards, Ferris --=20 Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) --=-KtJaTugBpbQXBrAVPGsy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkh0uHUACgkQQa6M3+I///fzKACcDQySDvLp130ady9iT+DCSHi+ 6VMAoMuZP7MVW/XXtHHhBeFox0Zng94T =uEhy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-KtJaTugBpbQXBrAVPGsy-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list