[gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3454 bytes --]

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 <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote at Tue, 08 Jan 2008
15:03:25 -0800
====================================
====================================
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.
============================================
============================================
Chris,
With all due respect, for some reason we don't have Proctors anymore to enforce
the CoC.  Thus, things we would expect the proctors to catch and handle under 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
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Chrissy Fullam]

> Ferris McCormick wrote:
> With all due respect, for some reason we don't have Proctors 
> anymore to enforce the CoC.  Thus, things we would expect the 
> proctors to catch and handle under 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.

Please lay off the personal attacks here; it's getting beyond ridiculous.
Wolf31o2 is not the only council member who wanted to 'kill off the
proctors', see below:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070712-summary.txt
- Kingtaco wanted a vote to cancel the proctors. robbat2 wanted them to just
  die quietly if no material was forthcoming. Others called for a definate
  stand rather than the "die quietly". All 5 attending council members voted
  in favour of dropping the proctors.
Seems to me that every council member in attendance decided they wanted to
'kill off the proctors.'

Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations 

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] RE: Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Steve Long]

Chrissy Fullam wrote:
>> Ferris McCormick wrote:
>> With all due respect, for some reason we don't have Proctors
>> anymore to enforce the CoC.  Thus, things we would expect the
>> proctors to catch and handle under 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.
> 
> Please lay off the personal attacks here; it's getting beyond ridiculous.

I'm sorry that really did not read like a personal attack. I have zero idea
what the personal history between the parties is, but from what I have read
on this list and project, Mr McCormick has only ever raised perfectly valid
questions in a wholly appropriate manner.

There are many examples of others using far more personal and frankly
abusive comments which are never remarked on. Combined with the apparently
partisan manner with which this is being dealt (devrel complaint and the
head of devrel posting quite formal-sounding comments [in the other
sub-thread] which simply sound threatening) one is left with an impression
of a cliquey, factionalised dev-group, and tbh a rather bad taste in the
mouth.

> Wolf31o2 is not the only council member who wanted to 'kill off the
> proctors', see below:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070712-summary.txt
> - Kingtaco wanted a vote to cancel the proctors. robbat2 wanted them to
> just
>   die quietly if no material was forthcoming. Others called for a definate
>   stand rather than the "die quietly". All 5 attending council members
>   voted in favour of dropping the proctors.
> Seems to me that every council member in attendance decided they wanted to
> 'kill off the proctors.'
> 
Without getting into that whole row, I must point out that meeting was a
month after the "lovely email" you referred to, which came out of nowhere.
(No prior discussion about any of the concerns had been raised with the
proctors team.) Speculation as to the motives of the Council is moot: the
consensus for proctors had been thrashed out on this list over a period of
several months.

Now we will have proctors by another name, only drawn from a far smaller
pool much closer to the Council, with the remit confined to this list and
no "useless warnings" only immediate action. I sincerely hope that works.

[Please note followup]


-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RE: Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 325 bytes --]

(Didn't really have anything specific to reply to, so just picking this)

On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 05:39 +0000, Steve Long wrote:
> Mr McCormick

Ehh, Ferris and I resolved our issues after a couple emails and just a
little time to chill out.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Luca Barbato]

Ferris McCormick wrote:
> With all due respect, for some reason we don't have Proctors anymore to enforce
> the CoC.

The perception is that they aren't/weren't _exactly_ needed as they are,
either because nobody wants the secret policy feeling or because self
regulation is working almost nicely.

> Thus, things we would expect the proctors to catch and handle under 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.

Item already present I think.

> I am asking a question as a member of the devrel confres subproject and as
> an interested developer.

you know the channel and the time ^^;

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 679 bytes --]

On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 14:00 +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> 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.

...and the finger-pointing starts... Bravo!

I never have been able to figure out what the hell I did to you to make
you feel like you need to personally attack me every step of the way,
but I'm not putting up with it, anymore.

I'm adding Developer Relations to this email and will be filing a formal
complaint against you.  Have a good day.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3342 bytes --]


On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 11:51 -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 14:00 +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> ...and the finger-pointing starts... Bravo!
> 
> I never have been able to figure out what the hell I did to you to make
> you feel like you need to personally attack me every step of the way,
> but I'm not putting up with it, anymore.
> 
> I'm adding Developer Relations to this email and will be filing a formal
> complaint against you.  Have a good day.
> 

To the extent you see this as a personal attack, I apologize.  I never
intended it as such.  I was only recalling your email from 5 June which
reads:
================================================
On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 21:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:44:23 +0100
> Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote:
> > For that reason alone, it should normally be avoided in international 
> > forums such as are provided by Gentoo. 
> 
> Why yes! Gentoo needs to be one hundred percent serious and entirely
> not fun. Anyone saying anything remotely amusing needs to be shut down
> by the proctors immediately. Please keep up the good work.

I really have to agree with you.  The proctors have completely lost
their way.  They are ineffective.  They tend to compound the problems
they were created to stop.  They are slow.  They have not prevented
anything, which was the reason for their creation.  Rather, what they
*have* done is stifle conversation, piss off people, get in the way of
Developer Relations reports, and otherwise making developers feel like
they don't want to participate in our official discussion channels.

What do I think needs to be done?

The proctors project needs to go away.  It simply wasn't implemented in
the way the Council had hoped and has proven to be more harmful than the
original problems to morale and inter-developer trust.  While the
individual members might be doing what they think is best and trying
their best, they've failed at the goals of improving our communications
channels.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation
=================================================
From this I inferred you were the one who wanted to kill off the proctors.  I
am not attacking you:  I am saying there is no way to catch CoC violations
because the mechanism for that was the proctors, we don't have any proctors,
and it seems to me ("The proctors project needs to go away") that you were
instrumental in that.  If any of this is incorrect, I'll retract it, but I am
trying to be factually correct and what I have is the above email.

As for filing a devrel complaint, do so if you must.  But as you know, policy
strongly suggests you should talk to me first so we can figure out where the
miscommunication is.  We also might discuss why you chose to hang an attack on
devrel onto my rather innocuous musings.

Sorry for any confusion,
Regards,
Ferris
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Chrissy Fullam]

> > > Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > ...and the finger-pointing starts... Bravo!
> 
> Ferris McCormick wrote:
> To the extent you see this as a personal attack, I apologize.
> I never intended it as such.  I was only recalling your email
> from 5 June

Fmccor, your comment about wolf 'being the one who wanted to kill off the
proctors' really served no purpose to the point; that being that the
proctors are no more and your personal curiosity as to how the CoC should
now be enforced. Adding no benefit to the point makes your comments useless
information. Your wording ('you ensured' and 'you are the one') only
furthers to make it useless information and appear very personal. 'You'
versus 'council' for example. You may honestly not intend it as such but
please be aware that it is easily interpreted that way when a simple change
of wording might have avoided this.

Wolf31o2 is not the council member who called to vote to disband the
proctors, and he is only one of five council members who voted to disband
the proctors. I myself had private conversations with council members OTHER
than wolf31o2 who had expressed the desire to drop the proctor project. The
combination of those things justifies me simply stating that your statement
is incorrect. Sure he sent that lovely email that you provided us all;
doesn't mean much though as he's not the only one who said those things. He
took a stance, as a council member should do, I mean isnt that why we have
council? And he is one person who can contribute but not solely rule, isnt
that why we have several council members instead of just one person? Quit
giving him 'credit' for the entire thing.

> Ferris McCormick wrote:
> As for filing a devrel complaint, do so if you must.  But as 
> you know, policy strongly suggests you should talk to me 
> first so we can figure out where the miscommunication is.  We 
> also might discuss why you chose to hang an attack on devrel 
> onto my rather innocuous musings.

You have a negative history with wolf31o2, and the details of which quite
frankly should be kept off this mailing list. His negative experiences
throughout all of 2007 with Conflict Resolution and consequently Developer
Relations justify any of your alleged 'attacks on devrel.' Let's take this
discussion elsewhere.
And a final note, you have had to justify your 'innocuous musings' a few
times recently, on this list and other Gentoo lists. Perhaps that could be a
sign that you should mull over and validate those musings yourself before
throwing them at the rest of us. Might cause fewer 'misunderstandings' with
regards to your statements.

Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations 


-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Fabian Groffen]

On 09-01-2008 13:03:13 -0800, Chrissy Fullam wrote:
> You have a negative history with wolf31o2, and the details of which quite
> frankly should be kept off this mailing list. His negative experiences
> throughout all of 2007 with Conflict Resolution and consequently Developer
> Relations justify any of your alleged 'attacks on devrel.' Let's take this
> discussion elsewhere.

> Kind regards,
> Christina Fullam
> Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations 

IMHO, you have a very big conflict of interest in this issue.  Why do
you (for the second time) handle a case like this one, and not someone
else from devrel?

I have a hard time to take your message as an objective and unbiased
one.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Chrissy Fullam]

> Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 09-01-2008 13:03:13 -0800, Chrissy Fullam wrote:
> > You have a negative history with wolf31o2, and the details of which 
> > quite frankly should be kept off this mailing list. ...
> > Let's take this discussion elsewhere.
> 
> IMHO, you have a very big conflict of interest in this issue. 
>  Why do you (for the second time) handle a case like this 
> one, and not someone else from devrel?
> 
> I have a hard time to take your message as an objective and 
> unbiased one.

I apologize if my email was not clear enough for you. I never said that I
would, nor have any intention to, handle this case personally. I do however
feel that a dispute/disagreement between two developers should not be taken
to the mailing lists. Please let me be clear, I did not say I would
personally handle this nor do I have any intention of personally handling
this. My intent is to assign someone to attempt mediation. If mediation
efforts fail, it will be escalated as per policy.

I appreciate your opinion and your right to have such an opinion, however, I
have a hard time understanding your reason for said opinion. I would expect
any person to be able to say 'enough' and 'lets take this elsewhere.' If you
feel that a person in DevRel can have no relationship with any other
developer, friendship or otherwise, then you are sadly mistaken. And having
any sort of relationship with any other developer does not then cloud your
ability to think; if it does then that person has a host of problems to
contend with, Gentoo being the least of them.

Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations 

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 619 bytes --]

Chrissy Fullam wrote:
> I appreciate your opinion and your right to have such an opinion, however, I
> have a hard time understanding your reason for said opinion. I would expect
> any person to be able to say 'enough' and 'lets take this elsewhere.'

Perhaps he feels in such a way because your mail wasn't really "please
talk about it elsewhere", but rather a "warning" (at least that's how I
perceived it) and you signed it as a "Gentoo Developer Relations Lead".
I hope this helps you understand why someone might have such an opinion :).

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 503 bytes --]

On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 23:27 +0100, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> and you signed it as a "Gentoo Developer Relations Lead".

Umm... because that's her .sig?

Wow.  I'm really surprised that this concept is foreign to people.  Are
you saying that you need beer from the pub because of your signature?
Are you speaking on behalf of pubs?  Beer?  Maybe mouths?

(Yes, you can quickly see just how asinine the assumption is...)

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Shyam Mani]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1026 bytes --]

Jan Kundrát wrote:

> Perhaps he feels in such a way because your mail wasn't really "please
> talk about it elsewhere", but rather a "warning" (at least that's how I
> perceived it) and you signed it as a "Gentoo Developer Relations Lead".
> I hope this helps you understand why someone might have such an opinion :).

Jan,

The mail by Christina wasn't perfect, neither was your perception. We're
all human and we all tend to get carried away with various things.

For the nth time, I'll stress that email and IRC are text
mediums...there is no tone, no gestures, nothing.

IF I were to sign this email with the following :

Infra Monkey with Root on xyz.gentoo.org

Doesn't mean I'm going to go terminate your account or whatever I say
has everything to do with my position with some team in Gentoo.

Regards,

-- 
Shyam Mani | <fox2mike@gentoo.org>
docs-team  | http://gdp.gentoo.org
devrel     | http://devrel.gentoo.org
infra	   | http://infrastructure.gentoo.org
GPG Key    | 0xFDD0E345


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 258 bytes --]

Perhaps I'm just so much used to seeing automatic signatures separated
by "-- \r\n" and consider non-separated text as "typed by the author".

(And yes, Chris, I need beer from pubs :) )

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2822 bytes --]

On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 22:42 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 09-01-2008 13:03:13 -0800, Chrissy Fullam wrote:
> > You have a negative history with wolf31o2, and the details of which quite
> > frankly should be kept off this mailing list. His negative experiences
> > throughout all of 2007 with Conflict Resolution and consequently Developer
> > Relations justify any of your alleged 'attacks on devrel.' Let's take this
> > discussion elsewhere.
> 
> > Kind regards,
> > Christina Fullam
> > Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations 
> 
> IMHO, you have a very big conflict of interest in this issue.  Why do

Umm... and?

Where in policy does it say that someone *must* remove themselves from a
*conversation* where there *might* be a conflict of interest or bias?
See, I had assumed that we all were supposed to respect each other's
ability to look at the *facts* and *evidence* and make decisions based
on said facts and evidence.  I mean, if we all stopped participating in
conversations where we had our own personal bias, there'd be no need for
this list, our IRC channels, or any shared communications medium.  See,
it is *expected* that people are going to be biased.  Everyone will have
their own bias.  It is how people *act* that makes the difference.  Of
course, I guess that only applies when it has nothing to do with me,
huh?

> you (for the second time) handle a case like this one, and not someone
> else from devrel?

Like who, exactly?  Can you even tell who is active in Developer
Relations?  The Conflict Resolution team is *exactly* Christel, who is
pretty much AWOL (not that I blame her... :P) and Ferris.

> I have a hard time to take your message as an objective and unbiased
> one.

So?  You mean the fact that I've had numerous verifiable issues with
Developer Relations is somehow a matter of opinion that is being based
on bias?  I guess the emails that I sent to Developer Relations about
issues that I was having *long before Chrissy ever became a developer*
are all a part of her "bias" towards me and completely fabricated?  What
about the fact that several other members of Developer Relations have
been reviewing and agreeing with all of her determinations?

I find this whole thing humorous.  None of you know a damn thing about
Chrissy and my relationship, yet you make your assumptions.  Keep on
assuming.  I really couldn't care less.

It's this exact form of double standard and using things only when they
fit what you want that keeps things from actually getting done,
especially when they're untrue or based on faulty assumptions.  I guess
that's just business as usual around here, though.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

[Stephen Bennett]

> I'm adding Developer Relations to this email and will be filing a formal
> complaint against you.  Have a good day.
>   
lol.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list