Re: [gentoo-devrel] RFC: etiquette enforcment

Re: [gentoo-devrel] RFC: etiquette enforcment

[Thomas Cort]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1401 bytes --]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 14:41:03 -0500
Mike Doty <kingtaco@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The flamewars on public communication channels is out of hand.  it's
> having an negative effect in many parts of gentoo, even those that are
> not directly affected by the said war.  This is something that urgently
> needs to be addressed.

I agree. Your suggestion is great!

> Sometimes people need a bigger kick in the ass though, which is where a
> short term ban helps.  When I say a short term ban, I mean 30-90
> minutes.  it allows everyone to cool off without them using bad judgment
> and popping back in.  I do similar enforcement in #-amd64 and it works
> very well.

A short term ban is a good idea, it lets people know they did something wrong without interrupting their development work. May I suggest that it only be a ban on sending mail to the list, not recieving it. It would be a pain for someone who was banned to have to search through the archives to find all of the messages within a specific time window.
 
> This still doesn't address repeat offenders and people who troll for
> sport.  It's possible that the short term bans will work, but that is
> something that we will only find out with experience.

I guess you could log every ban, then come up with a formula for finding repeat offenders (X number of bans in Y days will get devrel knocking on your door).

~tcort


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

[gentoo-devrel] RFC: etiquette enforcment

[Mike Doty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

All-

The flamewars on public communication channels is out of hand.  it's
having an negative effect in many parts of gentoo, even those that are
not directly affected by the said war.  This is something that urgently
needs to be addressed.

So, here is my proposal.  I hope it's not the only one.

creation of a etiquette enforcement group.  This group should be a
subproject of devrel, but should not be made up of devrel members.  I
say this because the actions and powers of this group need to be
separated from devrel.

This group should be composed of well respected members of our dev
community that have demonstrated the ability to diffuse situations that
would have otherwise became a flamewar.  The new group would act like
our current ombudsman group, except that the target is different.  I'll
try to give some examples.

IRC:
<clueless> Hi, I'm writing an ebuild and I want to install stuff to
/usr/local
<informed> Well, that's a bad idea.  ebuilds should never install to
/usr/local
<troll> clueless: you moron! ebuilds can't install to /usr/local, go
jump off a bridge!
<enforcer> troll: if you can't say something constructive, then please
don't say anything.
....
<clueless> I still want to install to /usr/local.  my ebuild isn't meant
for the tree, only my private use, and I feel that I should be able to
do it.
<informed> Well, then you want to check out http://foo.bar/blah as it
explains how to use insinto and doins.
<troll> You fucking moron, you can't do that!
<enforcer> troll: you were warned, and now you're banned for the next
hour.  please go do something else and cool off.
- - enforcer sets modes +q troll for #foobar

Mailing list enforcement is the same concept.  One warning and then a
short term ban.(yes, we have possibly found a way to enforce short term
bans on MLs)

Why does this work?
I believe that most people who get caught up in trolling do it
unintentionally.  Usually a "hey, you're being an asshat" will be enough
to stop the flamefest.

Sometimes people need a bigger kick in the ass though, which is where a
short term ban helps.  When I say a short term ban, I mean 30-90
minutes.  it allows everyone to cool off without them using bad judgment
and popping back in.  I do similar enforcement in #-amd64 and it works
very well.

This still doesn't address repeat offenders and people who troll for
sport.  It's possible that the short term bans will work, but that is
something that we will only find out with experience.

Preventing abuse of short term ban powers:
one of the first things that everyone will(and should) be worried about
is this group abusing their powers.  To prevent the enforcement group
from abusing their powers, the following safety checks would be put into
place.

1.  any and every action that the enforcer uses to enforce etiquette
needs to be immediately and publicly documented.  as a start I recommend
sending a email to gentoo-devrel ML.  This includes full logs/archive
pointers.

2.  enforcers are not allowed to use their power more than twice
consecutively on the same person/group.

3.  every action that an enforcer takes will be reviewed by at least 2
devrel members.

4.  if an enforcer has effected a ban on a person/group and the subject
was a time sensitive topic, then the enforcer is obligated to relay
messages verbatim from the person/group for the duration of the ban.

5.  any group/person affected by the ban may request a devrel hearing
about the ban in question.  These need to be handled as fast as
possible.  At devrel's discretion, devrel may immediately remove the
enforcer from the enforcement group or issue a warning to the enforcer.

6.  no enforcer shall have more than 2 warnings in a 6 month period and
never more than 3 in a year.


So, these are my thoughts.  there is still a lot to be worked out if we
decide that this is the best approach.

All comments are welcome, and if you want to troll, direct it to your
nearest brick wall.

- --
=======================================================
Mike Doty                           kingtaco@gentoo.org
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead         PGP Key: 0xA797C7A7
Gentoo Developer Relations
                 ===GPG Fingerprint===
   0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB  06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7
=======================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEbM3P0K3RJaeXx6cRAgskAKDITJIYHgKshXPir3CTHi1HtpnPSgCg4Pot
6v1cACeqj6/2njYZsUG/+uU=
=apF6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-devrel] RFC: etiquette enforcment

[Tim Yamin]

> So, here is my proposal.  I hope it's not the only one.
> 
> creation of a etiquette enforcement group.  This group should be a
> subproject of devrel, but should not be made up of devrel members.  I
> say this because the actions and powers of this group need to be
> separated from devrel.

Who will lead the group? Also is the enforcer's powers limited purely to
spurs on IRC and mailing lists; i.e. behaviour issues and/or repetitive
patterns still go to devrel for discussion; complaints to Bugzilla, etc?

> - - enforcer sets modes +q troll for #foobar

Devs (well, ops in the channel) have always had this capability; nothing
new. Also address problem of enforcer himself being an ass on IRC/MLs,
what happens then; we don't want a "that guy did it and he's reponsible
for good behaviour so I can do it too" happening...

> Sometimes people need a bigger kick in the ass though, which is where a
> short term ban helps.  When I say a short term ban, I mean 30-90
> minutes.  it allows everyone to cool off without them using bad judgment
> and popping back in.  I do similar enforcement in #-amd64 and it works
> very well.

... making sure that said person is informed of the ban, otherwise it
might be useless and have no effect.

> 1.  any and every action that the enforcer uses to enforce etiquette
> needs to be immediately and publicly documented.  as a start I recommend
> sending a email to gentoo-devrel ML.  This includes full logs/archive
> pointers.

gentoo-devrel isn't a database for etiquette violations given that it's
archived all over the place. You need a more appropriate place.

> 4.  if an enforcer has effected a ban on a person/group and the subject
> was a time sensitive topic, then the enforcer is obligated to relay
> messages verbatim from the person/group for the duration of the ban.

Topic such as? And if it's verbatim what's the point of the ban?
-- 
gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-devrel] RFC: etiquette enforcment

[Mike Doty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thomas Cort wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 14:41:03 -0500
> Mike Doty <kingtaco@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> The flamewars on public communication channels is out of hand.  it's
>> having an negative effect in many parts of gentoo, even those that are
>> not directly affected by the said war.  This is something that urgently
>> needs to be addressed.
> 
> I agree. Your suggestion is great!
> 
>> Sometimes people need a bigger kick in the ass though, which is where a
>> short term ban helps.  When I say a short term ban, I mean 30-90
>> minutes.  it allows everyone to cool off without them using bad judgment
>> and popping back in.  I do similar enforcement in #-amd64 and it works
>> very well.
> 
> A short term ban is a good idea, it lets people know they did something wrong without interrupting their development work. May I suggest that it only be a ban on sending mail to the list, not recieving it. It would be a pain for someone who was banned to have to search through the archives to find all of the messages within a specific time window.
interesting thought,  I'll poke people about this.


- --
=======================================================
Mike Doty                           kingtaco@gentoo.org
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead         PGP Key: 0xA797C7A7
Gentoo Developer Relations
                 ===GPG Fingerprint===
   0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB  06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7
=======================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEbNYa0K3RJaeXx6cRAt2hAJ9AZCCqMxM3yns51iBkW7bUKtc4zwCdH4F/
zpLnZRfmk6u2MfwMWB1ftrc=
=0XEg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-devrel] RFC: etiquette enforcment

[Shyam Mani]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 702 bytes --]

Tim Yamin wrote:

> Devs (well, ops in the channel) have always had this capability; nothing
> new. Also address problem of enforcer himself being an ass on IRC/MLs,
> what happens then; we don't want a "that guy did it and he's reponsible
> for good behaviour so I can do it too" happening...

And devs in -dev have sat through doing nothing (most of the times) to
diffuse any situation or have been highly unsuccessful because no one
bothers to listen.

Mike, I think this is a good idea. I've seen the +q work well in #gentoo
and yeah, after a while people do listen.

Regards,

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


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

Re: [gentoo-devrel] RFC: etiquette enforcment

[Mike Doty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tim Yamin wrote:
>> So, here is my proposal.  I hope it's not the only one.
>>
>> creation of a etiquette enforcement group.  This group should be a
>> subproject of devrel, but should not be made up of devrel members.  I
>> say this because the actions and powers of this group need to be
>> separated from devrel.
> 
> Who will lead the group? Also is the enforcer's powers limited purely to
> spurs on IRC and mailing lists; i.e. behaviour issues and/or repetitive
> patterns still go to devrel for discussion; complaints to Bugzilla, etc?

Not me, I feel I can't do it while still belonging to the groups that
I'm currently in unless there in a public vote and I'm voted in.

>> - - enforcer sets modes +q troll for #foobar
> 
> Devs (well, ops in the channel) have always had this capability; nothing
> new. Also address problem of enforcer himself being an ass on IRC/MLs,
> what happens then; we don't want a "that guy did it and he's reponsible
> for good behaviour so I can do it too" happening...
Yes, and what happens?  someone else kicks the kicker.  Addressing a
enforcer who acts out is no different than addressing a devrel member
who does the same.  we try to select people that won't do that, but when
it happens we deal with it in the best possible way.

>> Sometimes people need a bigger kick in the ass though, which is where a
>> short term ban helps.  When I say a short term ban, I mean 30-90
>> minutes.  it allows everyone to cool off without them using bad judgment
>> and popping back in.  I do similar enforcement in #-amd64 and it works
>> very well.
> 
> ... making sure that said person is informed of the ban, otherwise it
> might be useless and have no effect.
agreed.

>> 1.  any and every action that the enforcer uses to enforce etiquette
>> needs to be immediately and publicly documented.  as a start I recommend
>> sending a email to gentoo-devrel ML.  This includes full logs/archive
>> pointers.
> 
> gentoo-devrel isn't a database for etiquette violations given that it's
> archived all over the place. You need a more appropriate place.

make it bugs or a webpage or whatever.  I don't care so long as it's public.

>> 4.  if an enforcer has effected a ban on a person/group and the subject
>> was a time sensitive topic, then the enforcer is obligated to relay
>> messages verbatim from the person/group for the duration of the ban.
> 
> Topic such as? And if it's verbatim what's the point of the ban?
The point here is that in a time sensitive situation that even the troll
should get his fair say.  This is the best that I could come up with.  I
hope that someone else can suggest a better way.

- --
=======================================================
Mike Doty                           kingtaco@gentoo.org
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead         PGP Key: 0xA797C7A7
Gentoo Developer Relations
                 ===GPG Fingerprint===
   0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB  06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7
=======================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEbNzN0K3RJaeXx6cRAleVAJ9a9fwOEW+54AsxpGJHakD4R4uvtwCeOL73
tgFG3yNLkvK6thRRqzyShsg=
=uQBK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-devrel] RFC: etiquette enforcment

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1858 bytes --]

Mike Doty wrote: [Thu May 18 2006, 02:41:03PM CDT]
> The flamewars on public communication channels is out of hand.  it's
> having an negative effect in many parts of gentoo, even those that are
> not directly affected by the said war.  This is something that urgently
> needs to be addressed.

I disagree.  I don't see a flamewar, but a spirited discussion.  As for
it having a negative effect "in many parts of gentoo", perhaps such a
blanket statement deserves some evidence?  Which areas?  How many is
many?  

> So, here is my proposal.  I hope it's not the only one.

Fair enough, I'll add mine: do nothing other than urge politeness and do
one's utmost to separate vitriol and opinion from fact.

> creation of a etiquette enforcement group.  This group should be a
> subproject of devrel, but should not be made up of devrel members.  I
> say this because the actions and powers of this group need to be
> separated from devrel.

Just as a logical point, exactly what authority does devrel have over
non-devs?  Seems like the wrong project to me.  Perhaps userrel?

That aside, I think censoring is unwise, and I certainly won't support
it.  Of course, I have no actual power, but I'll argue vociferously
against any such plan.  There's a marked difference between automated
spamming of a mailing list (which, of course, would result in access
being suspended) and somebody being annoying.

I'm not a wholly unreasonable person, I don't think, and I disagree that
things are out of hand.  Were your proposal in effect, we would be
censoring on cases where reasonable people disagree.  I think that's far
too low a bar to set.

Respectfully,
g2boojum
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-devrel] RFC: etiquette enforcment

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1116 bytes --]

On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 03:41:03PM -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> Preventing abuse of short term ban powers:
> one of the first things that everyone will(and should) be worried about
> is this group abusing their powers.  To prevent the enforcement group
> from abusing their powers, the following safety checks would be put into
> place.
> [list of safety checks removed]

Makes a lot of sense, a review process usually picks up most unfair
decisions, and if they slip through there are still further instances
to talk to.

While it may be a big change to some, careful moderation of the lists
may help bring down the amount of flames and trolling a bit. We have
both moderation as well as a review process on the forums and imo the
concept works quite well there. It sometimes really pities me to see
behaviour on -dev that gives you a clear ban on the forums (e.g. clear
personal attacks such as namecalling).

cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-devrel] RFC: etiquette enforcment

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1382 bytes --]

Mike Doty wrote:
> 1.  any and every action that the enforcer uses to enforce etiquette
> needs to be immediately and publicly documented.  as a start I recommend
> sending a email to gentoo-devrel ML.  This includes full logs/archive
> pointers.

You should find better place, IMHO. If you really want to do it
publicly, then put it into some RCS repo.

> 3.  every action that an enforcer takes will be reviewed by at least 2
> devrel members.

Could you please define "reviewed" here, especially wrt the timeline?

> 4.  if an enforcer has effected a ban on a person/group and the subject
> was a time sensitive topic, then the enforcer is obligated to relay
> messages verbatim from the person/group for the duration of the ban.

An example would be great.

> 5.  any group/person affected by the ban may request a devrel hearing
> about the ban in question.  These need to be handled as fast as
> possible.  At devrel's discretion, devrel may immediately remove the
> enforcer from the enforcement group or issue a warning to the enforcer.
> 
> 6.  no enforcer shall have more than 2 warnings in a 6 month period and
> never more than 3 in a year.

I assume that these warnings referr to the point 5 (ie "enforcer, don't
abuse your power"), not the warnings about trolling (ie "enforcer,
you're behaving as a troll").

Cheers,
-jkt

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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 258 bytes --]