From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02A5A1382C5 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 16:50:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5FCAAE084A; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 16:50:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-it0-x22a.google.com (mail-it0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23A39E084A for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 16:50:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id h143-v6so8629061ita.4 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 09:50:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=funtoo-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=jp9fDfVakoxc8OxPW07rWATWqJugdtEg/SAcL5EVzbE=; b=NNpGLb3olooVzJS8slYkjIY2nrtgunwjRnaT+CBoHKJ/qcNg27hV7FDusjG6MaZj10 e+gIBzzk4h9hSPwjdgB/zAKGeilMgPcFgMlcfa+wAShT+/lBTDxM9p7E8hJFHX1+hWXh s7zK0bXHWZaBjPfHqgsgEMP5oZuFFTZK5uqj+PIZpyKzWoQso0fpfXsbzCnp4zJR3Yh3 BhoQ9o31ho88bUOj3kAdgrFRtsBuP2tDzwrZdfgaFD0pZniSs5o4Nmv1AHfXptys7QP7 hMRMkjUBPbDNOOskoxjc9UJ3A3jq9Z0ugCq1Qo+ZGtKl6mhueutB7rw2/MCkpX7ACYda w1QA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=jp9fDfVakoxc8OxPW07rWATWqJugdtEg/SAcL5EVzbE=; b=UcVDO9nKmtwojHtpL1jxqG7cSeuxf36lSHCdNrGpkhZkNCWsbzd+IdSyeseFr0Na81 DJh6aZswQUo7O54VQf0M5vtma+Xh3nHs0HSJE7vmDCWrIxYv5SYDq+NO7YeVnJje/Koc jMkmUC6IrnuU6VjWQOe+GAGATg1uSTbMBV9wMcBumKdidVsIkXpO/DpvKHKkW9BNpkan zhd02uVkTrBuZhOuR8B9ARE2tIC3WoY6IUNHEj34d/WPiY0UFNf08zDM8QqxSwn7a9ye 6/F9PnhP/QJ5UCiJEFtb8mFx99eu00H7yJ5vYebhInz3yjVCnT3O4+T2u7gZ3pXfHnUK YjHg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBdZo7P1zRm7TagNnbEKTqp6yBqQsEQ7CtqtzDp22bf6NWMQc/B z6/AfyiOgJ0DUuWcVcMRwulTlfP7WyJ8wvYWqqfqjIBa X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48tXVcwWo6+e6ESxMTJKWJSokITfzN2kswnD/vl/+nXMcUbJ9eiaNQZYEx877lS8e0b1XdhEeWSsjg8aFjnFAc= X-Received: by 2002:a24:6fcd:: with SMTP id x196-v6mr13675019itb.44.1523811044572; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 09:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.78.215 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 09:50:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2a075ac6-057a-e526-6c4a-2c0d122600dc@gentoo.org> References: <20180410205106.lium4dz6kzucgrxo@gentoo.org> <1523742677.27031.1.camel@gentoo.org> <2a075ac6-057a-e526-6c4a-2c0d122600dc@gentoo.org> From: Daniel Robbins Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 10:50:43 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1 To: gentoo-nfp Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000455260569e5e8c8" X-Archives-Salt: 214693f3-16c8-4b70-af3c-2147a401289c X-Archives-Hash: 4cf97d4f5f37d8094ccaf23b3eea15a7 --0000000000000455260569e5e8c8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: > > Nobody contacted us regarding his email and I was not even aware it was > specifically targeting somebody. I am going to make a couple of points and then drop this topic. And Luca, I actually do expect that you will agree with all my points here. People in senior positions in Gentoo are very aware of the rules and yet they violate them. And yet they are very quick to use ComRel as a weapon against those who are critical of them. People in senior positions in Gentoo *should know the rules*! People in senior positions in Gentoo *should follow the rules* and *be examples of the rules*. They should not be the ones taking advantage of the rules. They should apply the rules to themselves and make sure that they are sparkly-clean before enforcing them against others. The CoC is primarily for those who are officially on the project, and then that sets the standard for interaction with people who are not officially on the project. But it's not intended to be a baseball bat that leaders of the project use against the public. Do you agree with me so far, if not my methods? Suggesting that I need to follow CoC procedure to file complaints against those who are leading the project is, well, sad. It may be the correct approach, technically, but it is still a sad state of affairs. What I mean is that it's sad that we are at this point, where these people can't keep themselves personally accountable to the CoC they claim to uphold and should embody themselves. > You are willfully behaving in CoC-infringing ways on purpose and you > stated that yourself. > Previously, yes. Now, no. I am attempting to follow the CoC. Maybe what I think is needed at this point is some kind of rule as follows: if you file a complaint with ComRel, you need to be able to claim that you yourself are making a best effort to be an example of the CoC on lists, IRC, etc. If ComRel did a bit of checking on this, it might be the "equalizer" that prevents these rules from being one-sidedly enforced, and prevent much of this "weaponizing" of the CoC. Call this the "fairness" rule or the "anti-hypocrisy" rule, or the "don't point fingers" rule. Something like this is very much needed. Right now, there is a one-sided nature to the CoC enforcement that simply does not work. It takes two sides to argue, and yet ComRel swoops in, makes a determination regarding blame, and then one-sidedly enforces the CoC. Really, both parties are to blame, to an extent, in all but the most extreme cases. Now, I am trying to abide by the CoC, be an example (I'm working on it) and I have suggested what I think is a really good policy change which will address the hypocrisy via procedural means, which means that I can hang up my masked vigilante outfit and find other things to do. I do believe this "fairness rule" is absolutely needed, as an alternative to kicking these people from the project, which would be my preference and option of choice as project founder and lead. But as it now stands, I would say that having ComRel swoop in, make a summary judgement of guilt, and implement punishment within the span of a few minutes is essentially weaponization of the CoC and does nothing whatsoever to bring civility, friendliness, and a positive development environment to Gentoo. And it will also invite the Founder to return to rant, hand wave, and post excessively. So, Luca, I ask you consider some sort of "fairness" rule for the project regarding CoC enforcement, and maybe become an advocate for this type of rule yourself and help it to be implemented. Right now, under the current policies, watching the CoC enforced to protect those who are themselves flagrant violators of it is actually contributing to the inequity in the project and slowly but surely undermining trust in the leadership structure, contributing to the rift between Council and Foundation, and causing all sorts of other problems. Best, Daniel --0000000000000455260569e5e8c8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= un, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

Nobody contacted us regarding his email and I was not even aware it = was
specifically targeting somebody.

I am going= to make a couple of points and then drop this topic. And Luca, I actually = do expect that you will agree with all my points here. People in senior pos= itions in Gentoo are very aware of the rules and yet they violate them. And= yet they are very quick to use ComRel as a weapon against those who are cr= itical of them. People in senior positions in Gentoo *should know the rules= *! People in senior positions in Gentoo *should follow the rules* and *be e= xamples of the rules*. They should not be the ones taking advantage of the = rules. They should apply the rules to themselves and make sure that they ar= e sparkly-clean before enforcing them against others. The CoC is primarily = for those who are officially on the project, and then that sets the standar= d for interaction with people who are not officially on the project. But it= 's not intended to be a baseball bat that leaders of the project use ag= ainst the public.

Do you agree with me so far, if = not my methods?

Suggesting that I need to follow C= oC procedure to file complaints against those who are leading the project i= s, well, sad. It may be the correct approach, technically, but it is still = a sad state of affairs. What I mean is that it's sad that we are at thi= s point, where these people can't keep themselves personally accountabl= e to the CoC they claim to uphold and should embody themselves.
= =C2=A0
You are willfully behaving in CoC-infringing ways on purpose and you
stated that yourself.

Previously, yes. = Now, no. I am attempting to follow the CoC.

Maybe = what I think is needed at this point is some kind of rule as follows: if yo= u file a complaint with ComRel, you need to be able to claim that you yours= elf are making a best effort to be an example of the CoC on lists, IRC, etc= . If ComRel did a bit of checking on this, it might be the "equalizer&= quot; that prevents these rules from being one-sidedly enforced, and preven= t much of this "weaponizing" of the CoC.

Call this the "fairness" rule or the "anti-hypocrisy" = rule, or the "don't point fingers" rule. Something like this = is very much needed. Right now, there is a one-sided nature to the CoC enfo= rcement that simply does not work. It takes two sides to argue, and yet Com= Rel swoops in, makes a determination regarding blame, and then one-sidedly = enforces the CoC. Really, both parties are to blame, to an extent, in all b= ut the most extreme cases.

Now, I am trying to abi= de by the CoC, be an example (I'm working on it) and I have suggested w= hat I think is a really good policy change which will address the hypocrisy= via procedural means, which means that I can hang up my masked vigilante o= utfit and find other things to do. I do believe this "fairness rule&qu= ot; is absolutely needed, as an alternative to kicking these people from th= e project, which would be my preference and option of choice as project fou= nder and lead.

But as it now stands, I would say t= hat having ComRel swoop in, make a summary judgement of guilt, and implemen= t punishment within the span of a few minutes is essentially weaponization = of the CoC and does nothing whatsoever to bring civility, friendliness, and= a positive development environment to Gentoo. And it will also invite the = Founder to return to rant, hand wave, and post excessively. So, Luca, I ask= you consider some sort of "fairness" rule for the project regard= ing CoC enforcement, and maybe become an advocate for this type of rule you= rself and help it to be implemented. Right now, under the current policies,= watching the CoC enforced to protect those who are themselves flagrant vio= lators of it is actually contributing to the inequity in the project and sl= owly but surely undermining trust in the leadership structure, contributing= to the rift between Council and Foundation, and causing all sorts of other= problems.

Best,

Daniel
--0000000000000455260569e5e8c8--