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 375471382C5 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 07:37:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 37E4FE087F; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 07:36:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 EF954E086C for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 07:36:56 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Shutting down the Off the Wall (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items ...) To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org, Thomas Deutschmann References: <46VMOZ54.H6K3WDDW.GVJ4SDQI@X7ZUXRCI.AYMFVOXG.BF2VNFXM> <191f08bb-2f08-a413-876b-ba01957142df@gentoo.org> From: desultory Message-ID: <0477131b-bc57-da97-dc51-9adbc47049a6@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 02:34:43 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <191f08bb-2f08-a413-876b-ba01957142df@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: fda60e0c-cd00-426d-a750-eab2d814dcfc X-Archives-Hash: 7227bbeb021d8c3726a0774896f7a502 On 12/11/20 21:38, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > Hi, > > On 2020-12-12 02:07, Roy Bamford wrote: >> [...] >> >> Can the council provide a problem statement that a least >> a majority of the members support? > > Let's cool down the heated debate a bit. > Asking for the council to actually state the problem at hand as it sees it seems to be an entirely reasonable thing to do, especially given how long it has gone without doing so. At this point you are the only council member to bother to express what you consider the problem to be. Which, while that is a start, is one seventh of the way to even having a basis to start to formulate a gestalt opinion of the council and comes a couple of days before the meeting before which a proposal which would satisfy that gestalt opinion would need to be formulated and presented. I would ask that you kindly forgive me for being distinctly underwhelmed on the whole. > Anyone can bring up a topic to council at anytime. This also applies to > council members and nothing else has happened yet. > While that is true, a council member making a motion to the council usurping the role of an active project, then complaining that the project in question has not fulfilled its role as it otherwise would have is a perverse privilege unique to council members. > I don't get your reference. Like said, this is not about free speech. > Not about section 230 currently discussed in the US: > > We as Gentoo community have created our code of conduct. > > The code of conduct we created should protect our values. > > This has nothing to do with liability. It doesn't matter if anything > which happened violates any law applying to Gentoo foundation or not. > Might I be so bold as to suggest that your opinion of that would change rather dramatically were such liability brought to bear? > This is about our 'own' law we gave ourselves to protect the values we > believe in to run this Linux distribution and how we want to treat each > other while doing what we love. > > Don't you believe in our code of conduct? > > Don't you agree that from time to time, especially those active in the > OTW forum adopt the wrong tone and tend to offend people? > > I think you do. Like I hope every community member do. > I believe that when there is a problem which calls for the attention of a moderator, it should be brought to the attention of a moderator, preferably the entire team, not declared to be the sole purview of the council which then refuses to let moderators act on it for weeks on end. > The current motion is about those few people (<20!) who don't. All of > them will have the chance to change their behavior in case they really > share our values. If they don't, those people no longer have a place in > our community. > If those few people make such frequent violations of the code of conduct, it should be utterly trivial to find reasonably current posts of theirs to properly report, be handled by the moderators, and if necessary the users could then be subject to disciplinary action by the moderators under existing rules. That it is somehow evidently considered to be an intractable problem is bewildering to me. Either there is cause to report the problem users, or there is not, and if not there is no cause to do anything about their posts either. The code of conduct is inherently subjective, the differences in posts in this discussion by different council members demonstrates that rather openly, and there will be disagreement on how it is enforced and indeed on whether it is enforced at all. That the council appears to be treating it as a fully objective document with hard binary pass/fail criteria while evidently not even agreeing amongst itself on quite what the CoC means in practice is itself concerning. That the council is treating it as an excuse to interfere with the basic functioning of a project on a level even below a bug report is an extremely concerning precedent to set, especially considering that the proposed remedy would negatively impact that project on an ongoing basis. The irony that the council is doing this with regard to the only project which enforces the CoC and has not openly stated that it avoids doing so as a general practice is not lost on me. > And that's also why I think you don't need any statement: > > A community member like you and me brought to everyone's attention that > there's a place in Gentoo forums where a minority of people violates our > code of conduct from time to time and want to stop that (and not for the > first time but hopefully for the last time!). > > We are currently in the process to find a solution for this. And > everyone in Gentoo is invited to join and help with that problem. > Especially the current forums team who usually do a great job. > Final solutions to social problems, real or imagined, imposed by those divorced from the consequences have a rather unpleasant history. > Of course, if nobody comes up with another, working, solution, like > said, we will have no choice but to close it. > > Please join the process. I think we all agree that we need to address > this problem because we believe in the values Gentoo is known for but we > can only do this together. > > Reporting problem posts is itself a working solution, and has been since before the forums formally became a part of Gentoo, if it weren't there would be a much broader problem.