[gentoo-nfp] agenda item: moderation of the nfp list

[gentoo-nfp] agenda item: moderation of the nfp list

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 763 bytes --]

Some questions have been raised about how the nfp list is moderated.
In that vein I propose the following.

1. Affirm that access to the nfp list is a privilege not a right, even
to Foundation members.
2. Formally give comrel rights to moderate the list, pursuant to the
CoC.  Moderate in this case means enact warnings/bans with reason given.
2.1. The reason given needs to be public (not sure about this)
2.2. Those having actions enacted against them are able to appeal to the
trustees.

Beyond that, I'd like to make something clear to comrel.  They are not
to ban access to the trustees alias, as this is a means of voting and
needs to be kept open.  I haven't seen this happen, just want to prevent
it.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] agenda item: moderation of the nfp list

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1626 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> Some questions have been raised about how the nfp list is moderated.
> In that vein I propose the following.
>
> 1. Affirm that access to the nfp list is a privilege not a right, even
> to Foundation members.
> 2. Formally give comrel rights to moderate the list, pursuant to the
> CoC.  Moderate in this case means enact warnings/bans with reason given.
> 2.1. The reason given needs to be public (not sure about this)
> 2.2. Those having actions enacted against them are able to appeal to the
> trustees.


This by itself does not appear to be legal. You can't have some independent
entity policing a mailing list run for Foundation member communication.
There is no clear connection between Foundation and ComRel, no
accountability of ComRel to the user community, etc, etc. This needs to be
resolved first.

Second, I expect the Foundation to have means of discussion for Foundation
members. In fact, it already does -- this list! Having a trustees@ alias is
not enough. The Foundation is a *member* organization. The Foundation
trustees are elected by members. The CoC is designed to be a standard of
*developer* conduct, but not all members are developers. The -nfp list is
clearly the official channel for communication regarding Foundation issues.
Having ComRel control who can post to this list is clearly not OK.

Furthermore, "warnings/bans" are not an appropriate way to *moderate* a
mailing list. We don't need a mailing list secret police that pounce
through a door like the "Spanish Inquisition" Monty Python sketch.

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2071 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] agenda item: moderation of the nfp list

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1473 bytes --]

On 17-04-2018 01:45, Matthew Thode wrote:
> Some questions have been raised about how the nfp list is moderated.
> In that vein I propose the following.
> 
> 1. Affirm that access to the nfp list is a privilege not a right, even
> to Foundation members.
> 2. Formally give comrel rights to moderate the list, pursuant to the
> CoC.  Moderate in this case means enact warnings/bans with reason given.

Please replace ComRel above with "the Gentoo body responsible for CoC
enforcement". In the past this were the Proctors and Andreas has been
trying to revive them.

> 2.1. The reason given needs to be public (not sure about this)
> 2.2. Those having actions enacted against them are able to appeal to the
> trustees.
> 
> Beyond that, I'd like to make something clear to comrel.  They are not
> to ban access to the trustees alias, as this is a means of voting and
> needs to be kept open.  I haven't seen this happen, just want to prevent
> it.

Matthew, the CoC is about Gentoo public communication mediums and so the
penalties involve the ability to use the Mailing Lists and Bugzilla. The
CoC doesn't prevent the ability to mail developers or alias directly.
ComRel and Proctors never did that nor could they do it in the future.

To be clear, if someone abuses our infrastructure to a sufficient level,
the infrastructure team could block them at the SMTP level, thus
preventing them to send any mail to *gentoo.org.

Regards,
Jorge


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] agenda item: moderation of the nfp list

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2074 bytes --]

On 17-04-2018 02:11, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
> wrote:

<snip>

>> 2. Formally give comrel rights to moderate the list, pursuant to the
>> CoC.  Moderate in this case means enact warnings/bans with reason given.
>> 2.1. The reason given needs to be public (not sure about this)
>> 2.2. Those having actions enacted against them are able to appeal to the
>> trustees.
> 
> This by itself does not appear to be legal. You can't have some independent
> entity policing a mailing list run for Foundation member communication.
> There is no clear connection between Foundation and ComRel, no
> accountability of ComRel to the user community, etc, etc. This needs to be
> resolved first.

I don't see why the Foundation can't decide to allow the entity (not
necessarily ComRel as I've expressed in the other post in this thread)
that enforces CoC to do the same on the nfp mailing list.
Also, acknowledging that nfp is a special ml, the rules can make it
clear that any actions on the nfp can be appealed to the Trustees.
In my view, it's up to the Trustees / Foundation members, if they want
any moderation in the nfp ml, if / what rules need to be followed in the
ml and who is going to enforce them.

> Furthermore, "warnings/bans" are not an appropriate way to *moderate* a
> mailing list. We don't need a mailing list secret police that pounce
> through a door like the "Spanish Inquisition" Monty Python sketch.

ComRel in this area is enforcing the CoC as it was tasked with that job
by Council after the Proctors were disbanded and a long time without
anyone enforcing the CoC. There have been attempts to revive the
Proctors so that they deal with the CoC again and ComRel goes back to
take care of the more severe issues.
The actions you're talking about (bans and warnings) follow the CoC[1]
and are explicitly mentioned in the "consequences" section.

 [1] - https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct

> -Daniel

Regards,
Jorge


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] agenda item: moderation of the nfp list

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 631 bytes --]

I am ammending the proposal as jmbsvicetto suggested.


Some questions have been raised about how the nfp list is moderated.
In that vein I propose the following.

1. Affirm that access to the nfp list is a privilege not a right, even
to Foundation members.
2. Formally give revokable rights to moderate the list the the body(s) in
charge of enforcing the CoC, currently comrel. Moderate in this case
means to enact warnings/bans with reason given.
2.1. The reason given needs to be public (not sure about this)
2.2. Those having actions enacted against them are able to appeal to the
trustees.

-- 
Matthew Thode

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] agenda item: moderation of the nfp list

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Matthew Thode
<prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 2. Formally give comrel rights to moderate the list, pursuant to the
> CoC.  Moderate in this case means enact warnings/bans with reason given.

Wait, what? This is the Foundation's mailing list you're talking
about. As far as I know, the key to the gold vault in Fort Knox isn't
managed by a sub-contracted janitor.

Re: [gentoo-nfp] agenda item: moderation of the nfp list

[Raymond Jennings]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:42 PM, Denis Dupeyron <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Matthew Thode
> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 2. Formally give comrel rights to moderate the list, pursuant to the
>> CoC.  Moderate in this case means enact warnings/bans with reason given.
>
> Wait, what? This is the Foundation's mailing list you're talking
> about. As far as I know, the key to the gold vault in Fort Knox isn't
> managed by a sub-contracted janitor.

I concur.

In my opinion nfp is a special case mailing list that the trustees
should have sole jurisdiction over.

Re: [gentoo-nfp] agenda item: moderation of the nfp list

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 821 bytes --]

On 18-04-21 00:26:12, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:42 PM, Denis Dupeyron <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Matthew Thode
> > <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> 2. Formally give comrel rights to moderate the list, pursuant to the
> >> CoC.  Moderate in this case means enact warnings/bans with reason given.
> >
> > Wait, what? This is the Foundation's mailing list you're talking
> > about. As far as I know, the key to the gold vault in Fort Knox isn't
> > managed by a sub-contracted janitor.
> 
> I concur.
> 
> In my opinion nfp is a special case mailing list that the trustees
> should have sole jurisdiction over.
> 

The agenda item should state that the Trustees have final say via
section 2.2.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]