* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-15 19:23 [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal Michał Górny
@ 2017-01-15 19:38 ` Raymond Jennings
2017-01-15 20:06 ` Rich Freeman
2017-01-15 20:02 ` Rich Freeman
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Raymond Jennings @ 2017-01-15 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 395 bytes --]
I would like to suggest that re-appeals be allowed to council AFTER a
significant period of time, say a year. People can change, and a decision
made in the heat of a moment may well cease to lose necessity.
I am NOT saying that such appeals should automatically succeed, nor am I
suggesting that the "floodgates of hell", so to speak, should allow
infinite appeals in a finite amount of time.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 589 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-15 19:38 ` Raymond Jennings
@ 2017-01-15 20:06 ` Rich Freeman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2017-01-15 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to suggest that re-appeals be allowed to council AFTER a
> significant period of time, say a year. People can change, and a decision
> made in the heat of a moment may well cease to lose necessity.
>
++
I personally feel that any past Council decision can be changed by the
present Council. People and circumstances change.
If I and my colleagues make a dumb decision, there is no reason for
everybody else to be saddled with it 5 years from now. It isn't like
we're infallible; we do the best we can.
Sure, the Council should also use discretion in changing past
decisions so that we don't just waffle back and forth, but such
discretion is something people should be looking for when picking
their Council members...
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-15 19:23 [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal Michał Górny
2017-01-15 19:38 ` Raymond Jennings
@ 2017-01-15 20:02 ` Rich Freeman
2017-01-15 20:13 ` Kent Fredric
2017-01-15 23:05 ` M. J. Everitt
2017-01-15 21:59 ` Dale
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2017-01-15 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> 2. Transparency
> ---------------
> Any disciplinary action should be announced by the team in a manner
> specific to the appropriate media where the measure applies.
> The announcement should be visible to all users of that media,
> and contains:
>
> - the name of the user to whom the measure applies,
>
> - the description and length of the measure applied.
I think most of your proposal is reasonable, except for this point.
I'd prefer that transparency be done in an anonymous way. I'm fine
with the individuals being affected by a disciplinary action
voluntarily choosing to allow this information to be divulged.
However, if somebody is the subject of discipline they shouldn't be
turned into public examples for a few reasons:
1. It makes them hard to rejoin the community after their
ban/whatever is over, because now they have a public reputation.
2. It can damage somebody's public reputation, which could affect
their ability to work on non-Gentoo projects or even for them to find
employment.
3. Because of #2, it tends to force the subject of an action to
defend their reputation in public, which then leads to arguments/etc.
4. Also because of #2, it may lead the subject of an action to defend
their reputation using the courts, which can become an expensive
proposition for all involved.
5. #3-4 will tend to render moot your suggestion to keep the details
of infractions private, since it will probably tend to come out in all
the arguing. Or, if it doesn't then all that argument doesn't
actually serve any productive purpose since there are no facts
involved.
If the concern is abuse then let those who feel they were the victims
of abuse be the ones to choose whether they make it a public issue.
And by all means publish anonymous information about the volume of
actions so that we can collectively judge whether it is happening too
often/little/etc.
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-15 20:02 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2017-01-15 20:13 ` Kent Fredric
2017-01-15 23:05 ` M. J. Everitt
1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Kent Fredric @ 2017-01-15 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1161 bytes --]
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:02:53 -0500
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'd prefer that transparency be done in an anonymous way. I'm fine
> with the individuals being affected by a disciplinary action
> voluntarily choosing to allow this information to be divulged.
> However, if somebody is the subject of discipline they shouldn't be
> turned into public examples for a few reasons:
Would a way for allowing such excluded members to set "away" flags,
and have the status of those "away" flags being visible in the relevant
channels be a suitable approach?
That way its up to the individual to set it, but the visibility can be
only binary, "away" or "present" ( much narrower than the dev-away system )
That way the interpretation and definition of that state is up to individuals,
and people who are given "you're banned" notices can be simply reminded that they
can change this flag if they want to.
That would at least solve the "user is unaware that person can't/wont action on bugzilla"
side of the problem.
You could allow it to be freeform, but I see that as too much a temptation as
a further venue to be abusive.
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-15 20:02 ` Rich Freeman
2017-01-15 20:13 ` Kent Fredric
@ 2017-01-15 23:05 ` M. J. Everitt
2017-01-16 17:54 ` Alec Warner
1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: M. J. Everitt @ 2017-01-15 23:05 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3442 bytes --]
On 15/01/17 20:02, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 2. Transparency
>> ---------------
>> Any disciplinary action should be announced by the team in a manner
>> specific to the appropriate media where the measure applies.
>> The announcement should be visible to all users of that media,
>> and contains:
>>
>> - the name of the user to whom the measure applies,
>>
>> - the description and length of the measure applied.
> I think most of your proposal is reasonable, except for this point.
>
> I'd prefer that transparency be done in an anonymous way. I'm fine
> with the individuals being affected by a disciplinary action
> voluntarily choosing to allow this information to be divulged.
> However, if somebody is the subject of discipline they shouldn't be
> turned into public examples for a few reasons:
>
> 1. It makes them hard to rejoin the community after their
> ban/whatever is over, because now they have a public reputation.
> 2. It can damage somebody's public reputation, which could affect
> their ability to work on non-Gentoo projects or even for them to find
> employment.
> 3. Because of #2, it tends to force the subject of an action to
> defend their reputation in public, which then leads to arguments/etc.
> 4. Also because of #2, it may lead the subject of an action to defend
> their reputation using the courts, which can become an expensive
> proposition for all involved.
> 5. #3-4 will tend to render moot your suggestion to keep the details
> of infractions private, since it will probably tend to come out in all
> the arguing. Or, if it doesn't then all that argument doesn't
> actually serve any productive purpose since there are no facts
> involved.
>
> If the concern is abuse then let those who feel they were the victims
> of abuse be the ones to choose whether they make it a public issue.
> And by all means publish anonymous information about the volume of
> actions so that we can collectively judge whether it is happening too
> often/little/etc.
>
I respectfully disagree.
If a persons actions have escalated to an extent where disciplinary
action becomes necessary, it should have become patently obvious by this
point that something has gone badly wrong, and that the consequences of
this are that you may be publicly named and shamed. Where there may be
some legal angle, I feel there may be cause to anonymise until legal
advice has been sought, but in that event, you may not wish to publish
anything until you know where you stand anyway. In the rare event that
an error occurs, a public apology may be the correct course of action to
rectify any public disclosure that may have previously occurred. This
too, should function as a check-and-balance that you're doing The Right
Thing(tm).
If it is deemed immediate and escalated action is necessary as the First
step, I think you're going to be seeking advice anyway, and it should be
apparent that such action is only desirable in very rare and severe
cases. Again, the knowledge that you may have to quickly backtrack and
perform a public apology should function as a check-and-balance.
Increased transparency and the fear of real consequences to your actions
should be an adequate deterrent to anyone thinking of stirring the pot.
It works elsewhere, why should Gentoo be such a special case?!
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-15 23:05 ` M. J. Everitt
@ 2017-01-16 17:54 ` Alec Warner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Alec Warner @ 2017-01-16 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3781 bytes --]
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
> On 15/01/17 20:02, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> 2. Transparency
> >> ---------------
> >> Any disciplinary action should be announced by the team in a manner
> >> specific to the appropriate media where the measure applies.
> >> The announcement should be visible to all users of that media,
> >> and contains:
> >>
> >> - the name of the user to whom the measure applies,
> >>
> >> - the description and length of the measure applied.
> > I think most of your proposal is reasonable, except for this point.
> >
> > I'd prefer that transparency be done in an anonymous way. I'm fine
> > with the individuals being affected by a disciplinary action
> > voluntarily choosing to allow this information to be divulged.
> > However, if somebody is the subject of discipline they shouldn't be
> > turned into public examples for a few reasons:
> >
> > 1. It makes them hard to rejoin the community after their
> > ban/whatever is over, because now they have a public reputation.
> > 2. It can damage somebody's public reputation, which could affect
> > their ability to work on non-Gentoo projects or even for them to find
> > employment.
> > 3. Because of #2, it tends to force the subject of an action to
> > defend their reputation in public, which then leads to arguments/etc.
> > 4. Also because of #2, it may lead the subject of an action to defend
> > their reputation using the courts, which can become an expensive
> > proposition for all involved.
> > 5. #3-4 will tend to render moot your suggestion to keep the details
> > of infractions private, since it will probably tend to come out in all
> > the arguing. Or, if it doesn't then all that argument doesn't
> > actually serve any productive purpose since there are no facts
> > involved.
> >
> > If the concern is abuse then let those who feel they were the victims
> > of abuse be the ones to choose whether they make it a public issue.
> > And by all means publish anonymous information about the volume of
> > actions so that we can collectively judge whether it is happening too
> > often/little/etc.
> >
> I respectfully disagree.
>
> If a persons actions have escalated to an extent where disciplinary
> action becomes necessary, it should have become patently obvious by this
> point that something has gone badly wrong, and that the consequences of
> this are that you may be publicly named and shamed. Where there may be
> some legal angle, I feel there may be cause to anonymise until legal
> advice has been sought, but in that event, you may not wish to publish
> anything until you know where you stand anyway. In the rare event that
> an error occurs, a public apology may be the correct course of action to
> rectify any public disclosure that may have previously occurred. This
> too, should function as a check-and-balance that you're doing The Right
> Thing(tm).
>
I think you vastly underestimate the number of bans that occur on mediums
such as IRC, the forums, or bugzilla.
-A
>
> If it is deemed immediate and escalated action is necessary as the First
> step, I think you're going to be seeking advice anyway, and it should be
> apparent that such action is only desirable in very rare and severe
> cases. Again, the knowledge that you may have to quickly backtrack and
> perform a public apology should function as a check-and-balance.
>
> Increased transparency and the fear of real consequences to your actions
> should be an adequate deterrent to anyone thinking of stirring the pot.
> It works elsewhere, why should Gentoo be such a special case?!
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4653 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-15 19:23 [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal Michał Górny
2017-01-15 19:38 ` Raymond Jennings
2017-01-15 20:02 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2017-01-15 21:59 ` Dale
2017-01-16 5:00 ` Dean Stephens
2017-01-15 22:55 ` M. J. Everitt
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Dale @ 2017-01-15 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Since the things around ComRel seem to have cooled down a bit, I think
> we can now start a serious discussion on how disciplinary action
> handling could be improved. While the recent complaints were focused on
> ComRel, I would like to take a more generic approach since ComRel is
> not the only body in Gentoo capable of disciplinary action.
>
> Therefore, I'd like my proposal to concern all cases of disciplinary
> action, involving but not limited to: ComRel, QA, Forum moderators, IRC
> moderators, Wiki admins and any other entity capable of enforcing
> a disciplinary action against developers and users.
>
> Note: throughout the mail 'users' include all people involved on
> the Gentoo communication channels, developers, users, bystanders
> and bots alike.
> <<< SNIPPAGE >>>
>
>
> What do you think?
>
I help moderate/admin a social site. I sometimes have to remove
content, restrict and ban members. I don't know how much of this can
apply because I don't know if some or any of this is possible on Gentoo
sites including B.G.O., IRC etc etc.
As a example of how we do things. If I remove content, I take
screenshots of it and then document it in a private staff only area. It
doesn't matter if it is text, images or what. If the site owner gets a
complaint or question, or another staff member wants to see what the
member did, they can look and see what it was for even if I'm not
online. If it is severe enough to require restriction of posting
privileges, then I go do that as well. When the member comes back
online, they get a notice that the account is restricted and to provide
further notice to the member, plus anyone else wondering, the word
Restricted is shown next to their name publicly. It's a
yellowish/orange color but that may not matter here. Also, the member
can see who did the restriction, how long it will last and the reason
for it. I enter that in during the restriction process. Other members
can see that the member is restricted but not what for or how long or by
who. Only the member is question can see that part.
If the post/content is severe enough to require a ban, then the member
when they return is shown that their account has been banned, the reason
for it and who did it. Also, next to the members name, it shows in red
the word Banned. Again, other members know the ban occurred but not who
did it or why. The member that is banned tho does see who did it and
why. Again, it provides privacy but also lets other members know not
to expect future communication.
With that system, the person that action was taken on knows who did it,
why and for how long or if they are banned. At the same time, other
members can not see anything but that they are restricted or banned.
That allows some privacy which you seem to want maintained but also
gives enough info in public as to why they are no longer active.
This is the good thing about this system. Let's say ComRel John gets a
complaint and suspends posting privileges for one week for member xyz.
The member that is suspended can see that they can no longer post, that
it was either done by John or ComRel, your choice on that, plus others
can see why they are no longer participating in whatever activity was
going on. Also, if John did something he shouldn't have, other ComRel
members can see it but you may can set it so that the council members
can see it as well. This way the people that need to know the details
have it available but it is not public. Also, you may or may not want
to set it up so that another person, team lead or council, can reverse
the action of John.
Again, this may not be possible for Gentoo. However, it may give some
out of the Gentoo box thinking. One thing about it, the person may not
even have to appeal what John did. If it is set so that the ComRel lead
or council can see what happened and why, and they disagree, it could be
corrected fairly quickly. It all depends on just how you can set this
up on Gentoo. The private staff area may be bugzilla or something
else. On mailing lists, I'm not sure how this would work unless a email
is sent to the mailing list the person is subscribed to that says member
xyz is restricted. Maybe some automatic method that is scripted or
something.
Just throwing out ideas. I hope it makes sense. ;-) Putting it into
text isn't so easy.
Dale
:-) :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-15 21:59 ` Dale
@ 2017-01-16 5:00 ` Dean Stephens
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Dean Stephens @ 2017-01-16 5:00 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On 01/15/17 16:59, Dale wrote:
>
> Again, this may not be possible for Gentoo. However, it may give some
> out of the Gentoo box thinking. One thing about it, the person may not
> even have to appeal what John did. If it is set so that the ComRel lead
> or council can see what happened and why, and they disagree, it could be
> corrected fairly quickly. It all depends on just how you can set this
> up on Gentoo. The private staff area may be bugzilla or something
> else. On mailing lists, I'm not sure how this would work unless a email
> is sent to the mailing list the person is subscribed to that says member
> xyz is restricted. Maybe some automatic method that is scripted or
> something.
>
It is historically significant, in this context, to note that merely
reporting a disciplinary action was enough to force the disbanding of
the entire Proctors project.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-15 19:23 [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal Michał Górny
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2017-01-15 21:59 ` Dale
@ 2017-01-15 22:55 ` M. J. Everitt
2017-01-16 0:25 ` Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: M. J. Everitt @ 2017-01-15 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10819 bytes --]
On 15/01/17 19:23, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Since the things around ComRel seem to have cooled down a bit, I think
> we can now start a serious discussion on how disciplinary action
> handling could be improved. While the recent complaints were focused on
> ComRel, I would like to take a more generic approach since ComRel is
> not the only body in Gentoo capable of disciplinary action.
>
> Therefore, I'd like my proposal to concern all cases of disciplinary
> action, involving but not limited to: ComRel, QA, Forum moderators, IRC
> moderators, Wiki admins and any other entity capable of enforcing
> a disciplinary action against developers and users.
>
> Note: throughout the mail 'users' include all people involved on
> the Gentoo communication channels, developers, users, bystanders
> and bots alike.
>
>
> Problems
> --------
> 1. Lack of transparency (this seems to be improving but I don't think
> we have a proper rules for that), that causes two issues:
>
> a. Users indirectly involved in disciplinary action are unaware of it
> which causes unnecessary confusion. Example: user is unaware that
> a person is banned from Bugzilla, and incorrectly assumes that
> the developer or user does not wish to reply to him.
>
> b. Users presume disciplinary bodies attempt to hide their actions
> which unnecessary builds tension and accusations. This becomes worse
> when the subjects of those actions are the only sides speaking upon
> the matter, and spreading false information.
>
> 2. Unclear appeal procedure (outside ComRel). For example, users that
> get banned on IRC don't have a clear suggestion on where to appeal to
> a particular decision, or whether there is any appeal possible at all.
>
> 3. Lack of supervision. Likewise, most of teams capable of some degree
> of disciplinary action are not supervised by any other body in Gentoo,
> some not even indirectly.
>
> 4. Lack of cooperation. Most of disciplinary teams in Gentoo operate
> in complete isolation. Users affected by disciplinary actions
> sometimes simply switch to another channel and continue their bad
> behavior under another disciplinary team.
>
>
> In this proposal, I'd like to discuss introducing a few simple rules
> that would be binding to all teams capable of enforcing a disciplinary
> actions, and that aim to improve the current situation. My proposed
> rules are:
>
>
> 1. Secrecy
> ----------
> Due to the nature of disciplinary affairs, the teams involved
> in performing them are obliged to retain secrecy of the information
> gathered. This includes both collected material (logs, messages, etc.)
> and names of the individuals providing them.
>
> All the sensitive information involving disciplinary affairs can be
> *securely* passed only to other members of the disciplinary team
> involved in the affair and the current Council members, upon legitimate
> request. The obtained information should also be stored securely.
>
> It is only necessary for a single member of the disciplinary team to
> store the information (or to use a single collective store).
> The Council members should remove all obtained information after
> the appeal/audit.
>
> It should be noted that an unauthorized disclosure of sensitive
> information by any party involved would be a base for a strong
> disciplinary action.
>
> Rationale:
>
> a. The collected material sometimes contains various bits of private
> information whose disclosure is completely unnecessary and would only
> unnecessarily violate individual's privacy. Gentoo ought to respect
> privacy of users, and do not invade it without necessity.
>
> b. Publishing names of individuals involved in a disciplinary action
> could encourage the subjects to seek revenge. While keeping them secret
> often does not prevent it (or even worse, causes the individuals to
> seek revenge on larger group of people), we ought not to encourage
> it.
>
>
> 2. Transparency
> ---------------
> Any disciplinary action should be announced by the team in a manner
> specific to the appropriate media where the measure applies.
> The announcement should be visible to all users of that media,
> and contains:
>
> - the name of the user to whom the measure applies,
>
> - the description and length of the measure applied.
>
> For example, a ban on a mailing list could be announced to the mailing
> list in question. A ban on Bugzilla could involve adding appropriate
> note to the user's name, so that all other users see that he can't
> respond at the time. A ban on IRC could be stored e.g. on wiki page,
> or noted on a bug.
>
> Furthermore, any disciplinary action must be reported to the Council.
> The reporting is done through a bug that is opened at the first
> disciplinary measure inflicted on a user, and reused at any following
> measures. It should contain the information listed above, and have
> the Council in CC. No private information should be ever included
> in the bug.
>
> Rationale:
>
> a. As noted above, the disciplinary measure often affect more users
> than the subject of the action. It is therefore most advisable to
> notice them of the action (i.e. that they can't expect the particular
> user to reply) and their length, while protecting as much privacy as
> possible.
>
> b. It is also beneficial for the subject of the action to have
> a publicly visible note of the measure applied, and clear statement of
> its length.
>
> c. Opening bugs for all disciplinary actions helps teams keep track of
> them and their durations, note repeated offenders and finally report
> all actions to the Council for auditing purposes.
>
>
> 3. Appeal
> ---------
> All disciplinary decisions (both actions and refusals to perform
> action) can be appealed to the Council. In this case, the disciplinary
> team is obliged to securely pass all material collected to the Council.
> The Council can either support, modify or dismiss the decision
> entirely. There is no further appeal.
>
> It should be noted that the disciplinary actions must not prevent
> the appeal from being filed.
>
> Rationale:
>
> a. Having a single body to handle all appeals makes the procedures
> simpler to our users and more consistent. This also guarantees that
> all measures can be appealed exactly once, and no channels are
> privileged.
>
> b. The Council is currently the highest body elected by Gentoo
> developers with the trust of being able to handle appeals from ComRel
> decisions. It seems reasonable to extend that to all disciplinary
> decisions in Gentoo.
>
>
> 4. Supervision
> --------------
> At the same time, Council is assumed to supervise all disciplinary
> affairs in Gentoo. As noted in 2., all decisions made are reported to
> the Council for auditing. Those reports combined with appeals should
> allow the Council to notice any suspicious behavior from particular
> disciplinary teams.
>
> For the necessity of audit, the disciplinary teams should retain all
> material supporting their disciplinary audit in a secure manner,
> throughout the time of the disciplinary action and at least half a year
> past it. The Council can request all this information to audit
> the behavior of a particular team and/or its member.
>
> Rationale:
>
> a. Having a proper auditing procedure in place is necessary to improve
> the trust our users put in our disciplinary teams. It should discourage
> any members of our disciplinary teams from attempting to abuse their
> privileges, and help discover that quickly if it actually happens.
>
> b. The necessity of storing information supporting disciplinary
> decisions is helpful both for the purpose of auditing as well as for
> (potentially late) appeals. Keeping old information is necessary to
> support stronger decisions made for repeat offenders.
>
>
> 5. Cooperation
> --------------
> While it is not strictly necessary for different disciplinary teams to
> cooperate, in some cases it could be useful to handle troublemakers
> more efficiently across different channels.
>
> Since all disciplinary actions are published, a team may notice that
> another team has enforced a disciplinary action on their user. This
> could be used as a suggestion that the user is a potential troublemaker
> but the team must collect the evidence of wrongdoing in their own
> channel before enforcing any action. It should be noted that
> disciplinary teams are not allowed to exchange private information.
>
> When multiple teams inflict disciplinary actions on the same user, they
> can request the Council to consider issuing a cross-channel Gentoo
> disciplinary action. In this case, the Council requests material from
> all involved teams (alike when auditing) and may request a consistent
> disciplinary action from all disciplinary teams in Gentoo.
>
> Rationale:
>
> a. Under normal circumstances, a bad behavior on one communication
> channel should not prevent the user from contributing on another.
> However, we should have a more efficient procedure to handle the case
> when user is a repeating troublemaker and moves from one channel to
> another.
>
> b. Preventing information exchange serves the purpose of protecting
> users' privacy. The access to sensitive information should be
> restricted as narrowly as possible. Disciplinary teams should perform
> decisions autonomously to prevent corruption of one team resulting
> in unnecessary actions from another.
>
>
> Migration
> ---------
> It would seem unreasonable to request all disciplinary teams to either
> report all their past decisions right now, or to lift them immediately.
> However, if this policy is accepted, all teams would be obliged to
> follow it for any further decisions.
>
> It would also be recommended for teams to appropriate update at least
> recent decisions or those that are brought up again (e.g. via appeal or
> repeat offense).
>
>
> What do you think?
>
I think this looks good Michal, and thank you for putting it together. A
clear and concise policy makes it a lot easier for people to understand
when they have done something wrong (possibly even unknowingly) and the
consequences of it. Having such a policy helps all parties involved to
know what is expected of them, and what should be expected at all points
in the process.
I commend the idea of having a more consistent policy across different
mediums, and some means for teams to interact and co-ordinate better. It
is perfectly reasonable to anticipate that actions on one medium may not
necessarily manifest themselves on another, and as such, any action and
its impact should be independently assessed.
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-15 19:23 [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal Michał Górny
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2017-01-15 22:55 ` M. J. Everitt
@ 2017-01-16 0:25 ` Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
2017-01-16 0:44 ` Raymond Jennings
` (2 more replies)
2017-01-16 4:56 ` Dean Stephens
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 3 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto @ 2017-01-16 0:25 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Since the things around ComRel seem to have cooled down a bit, I think
> we can now start a serious discussion on how disciplinary action
> handling could be improved. While the recent complaints were focused on
> ComRel, I would like to take a more generic approach since ComRel is
> not the only body in Gentoo capable of disciplinary action.
>
> Therefore, I'd like my proposal to concern all cases of disciplinary
> action, involving but not limited to: ComRel, QA, Forum moderators, IRC
> moderators, Wiki admins and any other entity capable of enforcing
> a disciplinary action against developers and users.
>
> Note: throughout the mail 'users' include all people involved on
> the Gentoo communication channels, developers, users, bystanders
> and bots alike.
Thanks Michał for this email.
Let me start with a few general observations. I'll reply to some of your
points later.
* We already have some policies about appeals - I'll admit many might /
are unaware of some of them.
* Council isn't and shouldn't be the direct appeal body for all decisions
* Following above, if it were, it'd be swamped with appeals (I believe
some don't have an idea of how many bans are set on all mediums - the vast
majority never being subject of an appeal and or never crossing to other
mediums)
* You don't mention some social network sites and I'm sure some want to
address those as well. IIRC, most of those, where we had an official
presence, were tied to PR.
> Problems
> --------
> 1. Lack of transparency (this seems to be improving but I don't think
> we have a proper rules for that), that causes two issues:
>
> a. Users indirectly involved in disciplinary action are unaware of it
> which causes unnecessary confusion. Example: user is unaware that
> a person is banned from Bugzilla, and incorrectly assumes that
> the developer or user does not wish to reply to him.
>
> b. Users presume disciplinary bodies attempt to hide their actions
> which unnecessary builds tension and accusations. This becomes worse
> when the subjects of those actions are the only sides speaking upon
> the matter, and spreading false information.
>
> 2. Unclear appeal procedure (outside ComRel). For example, users that
> get banned on IRC don't have a clear suggestion on where to appeal to
> a particular decision, or whether there is any appeal possible at all.
The general rule is that you appeal an irc ban to the team responsible for
the irc channel (#gentoo-ops for #gentoo, ComRel for #gentoo-dev and
individual project teams for #gentoo-* channels).
If an appeal of the team decision is needed, it should be either directed
to the Gentoo Freenode Group Contacts (#gentoo-groupcontacts) the people
that interact with Freenode and can in last resort close a channel or take
ownershipt of it or ComRel if there was an abuse of power by a Developer.
All actions by ComRel can be appelead for the Council.
ComRel is involved here as this was done by UserRel before.
> 3. Lack of supervision. Likewise, most of teams capable of some degree
> of disciplinary action are not supervised by any other body in Gentoo,
> some not even indirectly.
>
> 4. Lack of cooperation. Most of disciplinary teams in Gentoo operate
> in complete isolation. Users affected by disciplinary actions
> sometimes simply switch to another channel and continue their bad
> behavior under another disciplinary team.
>
>
> In this proposal, I'd like to discuss introducing a few simple rules
> that would be binding to all teams capable of enforcing a disciplinary
> actions, and that aim to improve the current situation. My proposed
> rules are:
>
>
> 1. Secrecy
> ----------
> Due to the nature of disciplinary affairs, the teams involved
> in performing them are obliged to retain secrecy of the information
> gathered. This includes both collected material (logs, messages, etc.)
> and names of the individuals providing them.
>
> All the sensitive information involving disciplinary affairs can be
> *securely* passed only to other members of the disciplinary team
> involved in the affair and the current Council members, upon legitimate
> request. The obtained information should also be stored securely.
>
> It is only necessary for a single member of the disciplinary team to
> store the information (or to use a single collective store).
> The Council members should remove all obtained information after
> the appeal/audit.
>
> It should be noted that an unauthorized disclosure of sensitive
> information by any party involved would be a base for a strong
> disciplinary action.
>
> Rationale:
>
> a. The collected material sometimes contains various bits of private
> information whose disclosure is completely unnecessary and would only
> unnecessarily violate individual's privacy. Gentoo ought to respect
> privacy of users, and do not invade it without necessity.
>
> b. Publishing names of individuals involved in a disciplinary action
> could encourage the subjects to seek revenge. While keeping them secret
> often does not prevent it (or even worse, causes the individuals to
> seek revenge on larger group of people), we ought not to encourage
> it.
As was discussed before, some argue whether we should keep the secrecy or
not. I, for one, believe that keeping things private is best for everyone.
I also support that any damaging data should be kept out of public eyes so
as not to "tarnish" users reputation - it seems not everyone agree with me
on this one.
> 2. Transparency
> ---------------
> Any disciplinary action should be announced by the team in a manner
> specific to the appropriate media where the measure applies.
> The announcement should be visible to all users of that media,
> and contains:
>
> - the name of the user to whom the measure applies,
>
> - the description and length of the measure applied.
>
> For example, a ban on a mailing list could be announced to the mailing
> list in question. A ban on Bugzilla could involve adding appropriate
> note to the user's name, so that all other users see that he can't
> respond at the time. A ban on IRC could be stored e.g. on wiki page,
> or noted on a bug.
Back from the Proctors days, there's an argument that announcing publicly
a ban may inflame dispustes further. Also, this is very tied to the
medium.
For example, Forums Moderators have a policy to deal with bans and a
procedure in place that frequently involves splitting spam / abusive posts
from a topic and moving it to dustbin. Keeping the spam / abusive post in
the topic and adding a comment that a user was banned, doesn't fit or
serve well the forums, imho.
> Furthermore, any disciplinary action must be reported to the Council.
> The reporting is done through a bug that is opened at the first
> disciplinary measure inflicted on a user, and reused at any following
> measures. It should contain the information listed above, and have
> the Council in CC. No private information should be ever included
> in the bug.
I don't think you have an idea of the scope of the bans. If this were to
be done, Council would be swamped. Just think of how many bans ops in
#gentoo and Forums Moderators have to do to keep spammers away.
Also, your proposal sees Council as the first appeal to a ban. I disagree
with that idea. I see Council as the last appeal body and that anyone
wanting to appeal to Council needs to contact and present the case.
> Rationale:
>
> a. As noted above, the disciplinary measure often affect more users
> than the subject of the action. It is therefore most advisable to
> notice them of the action (i.e. that they can't expect the particular
> user to reply) and their length, while protecting as much privacy as
> possible.
>
> b. It is also beneficial for the subject of the action to have
> a publicly visible note of the measure applied, and clear statement of
> its length.
We add a note to clear spammers on bugzilla such as "go away". You'd want
us to start spending a lot of time on every case for every ban?
To avoid any confusion, all bans on bugzilla done by ComRel include a note
on how to appeal for that ban (when not clear spammers).
One thing you mention that might be worth, is having a way to make clear
that a bugzilla account is "disabled". I don't think we should be explicit
about an account being banned.
> c. Opening bugs for all disciplinary actions helps teams keep track of
> them and their durations, note repeated offenders and finally report
> all actions to the Council for auditing purposes.
Again I don't think / agree that Council needs to "audit" all teams. I
don't see any reason Council needs to know how many users the KDE team
choose to ban from #gentoo-kde for misbehaving.
The day #gentoo-kde becomes a "war zone" that disrespects all users and
after #gentoo-groupcontacts and or ComRel are approached and that isn't
fixed, then I find it reasonable to appeal to Council about that, but
*only* then.
> 3. Appeal
> ---------
> All disciplinary decisions (both actions and refusals to perform
> action) can be appealed to the Council. In this case, the disciplinary
> team is obliged to securely pass all material collected to the Council.
> The Council can either support, modify or dismiss the decision
> entirely. There is no further appeal.
>
> It should be noted that the disciplinary actions must not prevent
> the appeal from being filed.
>
> Rationale:
>
> a. Having a single body to handle all appeals makes the procedures
> simpler to our users and more consistent. This also guarantees that
> all measures can be appealed exactly once, and no channels are
> privileged.
Appeal bodies are tied to the communication medium. Also, issues involving
user / developer conflicts, like perceived abuses by moderation teams,
fall within ComRel (formerly UserRel) purview.
> b. The Council is currently the highest body elected by Gentoo
> developers with the trust of being able to handle appeals from ComRel
> decisions. It seems reasonable to extend that to all disciplinary
> decisions in Gentoo.
You don't got to the Supreme Court before going though the appeals court.
> 4. Supervision
> --------------
> At the same time, Council is assumed to supervise all disciplinary
> affairs in Gentoo. As noted in 2., all decisions made are reported to
> the Council for auditing. Those reports combined with appeals should
> allow the Council to notice any suspicious behavior from particular
> disciplinary teams.
>
> For the necessity of audit, the disciplinary teams should retain all
> material supporting their disciplinary audit in a secure manner,
> throughout the time of the disciplinary action and at least half a year
> past it. The Council can request all this information to audit
> the behavior of a particular team and/or its member.
>
> Rationale:
>
> a. Having a proper auditing procedure in place is necessary to improve
> the trust our users put in our disciplinary teams. It should discourage
> any members of our disciplinary teams from attempting to abuse their
> privileges, and help discover that quickly if it actually happens.
>
> b. The necessity of storing information supporting disciplinary
> decisions is helpful both for the purpose of auditing as well as for
> (potentially late) appeals. Keeping old information is necessary to
> support stronger decisions made for repeat offenders.
>
>
> 5. Cooperation
> --------------
> While it is not strictly necessary for different disciplinary teams to
> cooperate, in some cases it could be useful to handle troublemakers
> more efficiently across different channels.
>
> Since all disciplinary actions are published, a team may notice that
> another team has enforced a disciplinary action on their user. This
> could be used as a suggestion that the user is a potential troublemaker
> but the team must collect the evidence of wrongdoing in their own
> channel before enforcing any action. It should be noted that
> disciplinary teams are not allowed to exchange private information.
>
> When multiple teams inflict disciplinary actions on the same user, they
> can request the Council to consider issuing a cross-channel Gentoo
> disciplinary action. In this case, the Council requests material from
> all involved teams (alike when auditing) and may request a consistent
> disciplinary action from all disciplinary teams in Gentoo.
>
> Rationale:
>
> a. Under normal circumstances, a bad behavior on one communication
> channel should not prevent the user from contributing on another.
> However, we should have a more efficient procedure to handle the case
> when user is a repeating troublemaker and moves from one channel to
> another.
>
> b. Preventing information exchange serves the purpose of protecting
> users' privacy. The access to sensitive information should be
> restricted as narrowly as possible. Disciplinary teams should perform
> decisions autonomously to prevent corruption of one team resulting
> in unnecessary actions from another.
>
>
> Migration
> ---------
> It would seem unreasonable to request all disciplinary teams to either
> report all their past decisions right now, or to lift them immediately.
> However, if this policy is accepted, all teams would be obliged to
> follow it for any further decisions.
>
> It would also be recommended for teams to appropriate update at least
> recent decisions or those that are brought up again (e.g. via appeal or
> repeat offense).
>
>
> What do you think?
To conclude, I'd summarize the process of appeals for group mediums /
areas as:
* ComRel / QA
As already known, Council
* IRC
start by appealing to the moderation teams
(#gentoo-ops for #gentoo, ComRel for #gentoo-dev, individual teams for
#gentoo-* channels)
if that fails #gentoo-groupcontacts / ComRel
groupcontacts deal with Freenode and can seize a channel or disband it
/ ComRel deals with user / developers issues and can deal with abusive
behaviour
* Bugzilla / MLs
ComRel if set by a ComRel member or seen as an abuse | the moderators
of an ml (if it's moderated)
* Forums
start by appealing to the Forums Moderators
if that fails ComRel
* Social network sites
(with official Gentoo presence) PR?
Some of these teams deal with appeals through email. For example
#gentoo-ops and Forums Moderators have emails that can be used to contact
them.
Regards,
Jorge
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-16 0:25 ` Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
@ 2017-01-16 0:44 ` Raymond Jennings
2017-01-16 0:55 ` Rich Freeman
2017-01-16 11:16 ` Jeroen Roovers
2017-01-17 17:38 ` Michał Górny
2 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Raymond Jennings @ 2017-01-16 0:44 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 290 bytes --]
I would like to suggest that the "defendant" reserves the right to waive
his own rights to privacy if he so desires.
If he *wants* to publicize his own case, IMHO he should be allowed to do
so. At least from the standpoint of his own privacy, at least. It is,
after all, his reputation.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 348 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-16 0:44 ` Raymond Jennings
@ 2017-01-16 0:55 ` Rich Freeman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2017-01-16 0:55 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to suggest that the "defendant" reserves the right to waive his
> own rights to privacy if he so desires.
>
> If he *wants* to publicize his own case, IMHO he should be allowed to do so.
> At least from the standpoint of his own privacy, at least. It is, after
> all, his reputation.
This was the sort of compromise I was thinking of.
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-16 0:25 ` Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
2017-01-16 0:44 ` Raymond Jennings
@ 2017-01-16 11:16 ` Jeroen Roovers
2017-01-16 19:35 ` Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
2017-01-17 17:38 ` Michał Górny
2 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Jeroen Roovers @ 2017-01-16 11:16 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:25:34 +0000 (UTC)
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The general rule is that you appeal an irc ban to the team
> responsible for the irc channel (#gentoo-ops for #gentoo, ComRel for
> #gentoo-dev and individual project teams for #gentoo-* channels).
> If an appeal of the team decision is needed, it should be either
> directed to the Gentoo Freenode Group Contacts
#gentoo is currently operated under the assumption that appeals go to
ComRel. Users who appeal their ban to the team get a review and as a
rule are advised to contact ComRel if they want to appeal the team
decision. The #gentoo ops team has never used Gentoo Freenode Group
Contacts for appealing #gentoo user bans, so this is a bit novel to
me.
Gentoo Freenode Group Contacts is a (team of?) contacts that represent
Gentoo to Freenode. I don't see how or why they should be directly
involved in channel user management as they aren't now - Gentoo
Freenode Group Contacts simply manage official "#gentoo*" channels and
their ownership with the network.
> (#gentoo-groupcontacts) the people that interact with Freenode and
> can in last resort close a channel or take ownershipt of it or ComRel
> if there was an abuse of power by a Developer. All actions by ComRel
> can be appelead for the Council. ComRel is involved here as this was
> done by UserRel before.
OK, that's channel management, then, and not user-per-channel
management. If you manage a channel under the #gentoo moniker, then you
get to upkeep some minimal standards as you will be regarded as part of
the wider community. Fair enough.
But we don't actually manage cross-channel user management at
all right now. Someone banned on #gentoo can go to #gentoo-chat for
support or ranting or whatever she is allowed to do there (or anywhere
else). This is a Good Thing. We don't need a higher body specifically
for that.
> One thing you mention that might be worth, is having a way to make
> clear that a bugzilla account is "disabled". I don't think we should
> be explicit about an account being banned.
"Disabled" is ambiguous. We currently appear to use "retired" for
developers on bugzilla. I think "inactive" might be a better
generic word for closed bugzilla accounts.
> Appeal bodies are tied to the communication medium. Also, issues
> involving user / developer conflicts, like perceived abuses by
> moderation teams, fall within ComRel (formerly UserRel) purview.
To give an example: the nature of Internet Relay Chat effects that a
corrective measure is usually abrupt and absolute and the object of the
measure will usually feel that power has been abused in some way. This
involves a lot of flaming and venting (usually about the
nature of the operator's motivations for power use, or some inadequately
explained Amendment to some Constitution in some exotic country or
other) in side channels that normally results in the ban being lifted
after a cool-down period that seems appropriate at the time or some 20
days by default. Referring these measures directly to the Council or
even ComRel would make it _more_difficult_for the IRC user to appeal and
wouldn't shorten the cool-down.
Even presenting the information to a higher instance would be an arduous
task and this proposal doesn't say where they would find the resources
to pay for the man power to do all that administrative work, or indeed
how, in detail, that instance could possibly involve itself in the
everyday dealings so directly.
> You don't got to the Supreme Court before going though the appeals
> court.
You didn't mention a legal system in which that statement is true or
praise the merits of such a legal system in particular. I must stress
that it certainly isn't universally true.
> > When multiple teams inflict disciplinary actions on the same user,
> > they can request the Council to consider issuing a cross-channel
> > Gentoo disciplinary action.
This (and what followed) assumes you can positively identify users,
particularly across media, and that's where it all falls down.
> > What do you think?
My UFO detector says you're trying to concentrate many dispersed powers
(of observation as well as execution) in a single instance. They Live!
> Regards,
> Jorge
Thanks, I agreed with most of that.
jer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-16 11:16 ` Jeroen Roovers
@ 2017-01-16 19:35 ` Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto @ 2017-01-16 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:25:34 +0000 (UTC)
> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> The general rule is that you appeal an irc ban to the team
>> responsible for the irc channel (#gentoo-ops for #gentoo, ComRel for
>> #gentoo-dev and individual project teams for #gentoo-* channels).
>> If an appeal of the team decision is needed, it should be either
>> directed to the Gentoo Freenode Group Contacts
>
> #gentoo is currently operated under the assumption that appeals go to
> ComRel. Users who appeal their ban to the team get a review and as a
> rule are advised to contact ComRel if they want to appeal the team
> decision. The #gentoo ops team has never used Gentoo Freenode Group
> Contacts for appealing #gentoo user bans, so this is a bit novel to
> me.
>
> Gentoo Freenode Group Contacts is a (team of?) contacts that represent
> Gentoo to Freenode. I don't see how or why they should be directly
> involved in channel user management as they aren't now - Gentoo
> Freenode Group Contacts simply manage official "#gentoo*" channels and
> their ownership with the network.
>
>> (#gentoo-groupcontacts) the people that interact with Freenode and
>> can in last resort close a channel or take ownershipt of it or ComRel
>> if there was an abuse of power by a Developer. All actions by ComRel
>> can be appelead for the Council. ComRel is involved here as this was
>> done by UserRel before.
>
> OK, that's channel management, then, and not user-per-channel
> management. If you manage a channel under the #gentoo moniker, then you
> get to upkeep some minimal standards as you will be regarded as part of
> the wider community. Fair enough.
>
> But we don't actually manage cross-channel user management at
> all right now. Someone banned on #gentoo can go to #gentoo-chat for
> support or ranting or whatever she is allowed to do there (or anywhere
> else). This is a Good Thing. We don't need a higher body specifically
> for that.
Jeroen,
thank you for clearing up the above.
Gentoo group contacts can and have been reached in the past about channel
management issues, not about individual bans. The group contacts would get
involved in a case where a channel no longer has any active moderators or
when someone argues the channel has gone "beserk".
>> One thing you mention that might be worth, is having a way to make
>> clear that a bugzilla account is "disabled". I don't think we should
>> be explicit about an account being banned.
>
> "Disabled" is ambiguous. We currently appear to use "retired" for
> developers on bugzilla. I think "inactive" might be a better
> generic word for closed bugzilla accounts.
I prefer "inactive" as well.
Regards,
Jorge
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-16 0:25 ` Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
2017-01-16 0:44 ` Raymond Jennings
2017-01-16 11:16 ` Jeroen Roovers
@ 2017-01-17 17:38 ` Michał Górny
2 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2017-01-17 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto; +Cc: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1018 bytes --]
Hi,
Just a short answer to few of debate points.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:25:34 +0000 (UTC)
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017, Michał Górny wrote:
> * Council isn't and shouldn't be the direct appeal body for all decisions
Well, my rationale was simple. If ComRel issues e.g. mailing list bans,
people get one appeal only. Now, if IRC behavior gets multiple appeals,
that sounds a bit unfair to me. Of course, we could separate more teams
out of ComRel but that sounds going back the devrel/userrel route.
Just to be clear, it's not very important to me.
> * You don't mention some social network sites and I'm sure some want to
> address those as well. IIRC, most of those, where we had an official
> presence, were tied to PR.
I've mentioned just some examples. I think the same rules should apply
to our moderators wherever Gentoo is represented officially.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-15 19:23 [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal Michał Górny
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2017-01-16 0:25 ` Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
@ 2017-01-16 4:56 ` Dean Stephens
2017-01-16 13:22 ` Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
2017-01-17 17:41 ` Michał Górny
2017-01-16 20:57 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2017-01-17 14:38 ` Daniel Campbell
7 siblings, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Dean Stephens @ 2017-01-16 4:56 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On 01/15/17 14:23, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> What do you think?
>
I think this proposal is utterly unworkable in practice. While the
intention is rather obvious, and heavily geared toward actual
contributing members of the community at large, the proposed
definitional scope and structure are incompatible with actual workloads
already in place.
To provide some perspective to those unfamiliar with the actual volumes
in consideration here, just on the forums there are typically several
"users" manually banned per day for posting spam, and perhaps a dozen or
two profiles manually banned because the profiles themselves were spam,
in addition to that there are typically hundreds (in some cases
thousands) of accounts which are effectively automatically banned due to
their spam content or at the very least matching reported user profiles
on Stop Forum Spam[1]. Opening a Council bug for each of these would be
an insurmountable workload if done manually, and at the very least a
ludicrous volume of completely pointless mail to all Council members;
but it is *exactly* what would be required by this proposal.
As for the potential counterargument that bots could be easily dropped
from the definition of "user" in this context, there is no general way
to distinguish a bot from a non-bot user in full generality, and several
ways in which non-bot users and bots could effectively share accounts so
it would all need reported regardless.
Note that the above is not considering any actions taken with regard to
contributing users, which are by comparison quite rare, though one could
consider locking a topic to be a "disciplinary action" which would
require still more Council bugs, warnings regarding borderline behavior
would require still more Council bugs.
As it stands, disciplinary actions are handled per medium and channel,
with appeals going first to those with direct authority over that medium
or channel, then to ComRel, then the Council. This is simple,
consistent, and most of all it is on the whole effective; all while
minimizing the amount of make work. If there is meant to be an implicit
argument that this is somehow insufficiently documented, by all means
make that point, ask people to document things more pervasively, do not
discard a working system because someone could not be bothered to read
the documentation.
[1] http://www.stopforumspam.com/forum/index.php
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-16 4:56 ` Dean Stephens
@ 2017-01-16 13:22 ` Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
2017-01-16 13:40 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2017-01-17 4:29 ` Dean Stephens
2017-01-17 17:41 ` Michał Górny
1 sibling, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Paweł Hajdan, Jr. @ 2017-01-16 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1237 bytes --]
On 16/01/2017 05:56, Dean Stephens wrote:
> I think this proposal is utterly unworkable in practice. While the
> intention is rather obvious, and heavily geared toward actual
> contributing members of the community at large, the proposed
> definitional scope and structure are incompatible with actual workloads
> already in place.
>
> [...]
>
> As it stands, disciplinary actions are handled per medium and channel,
> with appeals going first to those with direct authority over that medium
> or channel, then to ComRel, then the Council. This is simple,
> consistent, and most of all it is on the whole effective; all while
> minimizing the amount of make work. If there is meant to be an implicit
> argument that this is somehow insufficiently documented, by all means
> make that point, ask people to document things more pervasively, do not
> discard a working system because someone could not be bothered to read
> the documentation.
Good points.
IMO the proposal also has good points, and just needs to be updated to
take scalability issues into account.
Maybe routine things like spam could go through forums-specific channel.
I don't see a reason to get a bug filed for each of these.
Paweł
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-16 13:22 ` Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
@ 2017-01-16 13:40 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2017-01-17 4:30 ` Dean Stephens
2017-01-17 4:29 ` Dean Stephens
1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Kristian Fiskerstrand @ 2017-01-16 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 708 bytes --]
On 01/16/2017 02:22 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
> Maybe routine things like spam could go through forums-specific channel.
> I don't see a reason to get a bug filed for each of these.
There should be a general notice that resolution should be attempted at
the lowest possible level. E.g a developer dispute within a project
should be attempted to be resolved within the project by involving team
lead before it is escalated anywhere. This in particular goes for IRC
channels in project scope etc, removal of members from within a project
etc etc.
--
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-16 13:40 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
@ 2017-01-17 4:30 ` Dean Stephens
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Dean Stephens @ 2017-01-17 4:30 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On 01/16/17 08:40, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 01/16/2017 02:22 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
>> Maybe routine things like spam could go through forums-specific channel.
>> I don't see a reason to get a bug filed for each of these.
>
> There should be a general notice that resolution should be attempted at
> the lowest possible level. E.g a developer dispute within a project
> should be attempted to be resolved within the project by involving team
> lead before it is escalated anywhere. This in particular goes for IRC
> channels in project scope etc, removal of members from within a project
> etc etc.
>
Do you mean something beyond what ComRel already has on their project
page on the wiki[1]?
Specifically: "Community Relations may also act after all other attempts
to solve the issue have failed. Developers are encouraged to try to
solve the issue among themselves in a civil manner before they reach out
to Community Relations. Developers within a project engaged in a
personal conflict may wish to consult with the project lead. Although
leads are not necessarily qualified to resolve personal disputes,
technical issues resulting in conflict can often be resolved within the
project without Community Relations involvement."
[1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-16 13:22 ` Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
2017-01-16 13:40 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
@ 2017-01-17 4:29 ` Dean Stephens
1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Dean Stephens @ 2017-01-17 4:29 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On 01/16/17 08:22, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
> On 16/01/2017 05:56, Dean Stephens wrote:
>> I think this proposal is utterly unworkable in practice. While the
>> intention is rather obvious, and heavily geared toward actual
>> contributing members of the community at large, the proposed
>> definitional scope and structure are incompatible with actual workloads
>> already in place.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> As it stands, disciplinary actions are handled per medium and channel,
>> with appeals going first to those with direct authority over that medium
>> or channel, then to ComRel, then the Council. This is simple,
>> consistent, and most of all it is on the whole effective; all while
>> minimizing the amount of make work. If there is meant to be an implicit
>> argument that this is somehow insufficiently documented, by all means
>> make that point, ask people to document things more pervasively, do not
>> discard a working system because someone could not be bothered to read
>> the documentation.
>
> Good points.
>
> IMO the proposal also has good points, and just needs to be updated to
> take scalability issues into account.
>
The proposal is, in a nutshell, to file lots of bugs for the Council and
make them the first, last, and only point of appeal. Which effectively
makes the role of the Council to try keeping up with scrollback
literally everywhere that Gentoo staff/developers have disciplinary
authority due to their roles as Gentoo staff/developers; which, to be at
all realistic, is just not going to happen. It presents no novel net
benefits while incurring novel net costs. In short, the status quo is
superior to the proposed model.
> Maybe routine things like spam could go through forums-specific channel.
They already do, as do all other disciplinary actions on the forums. The
question should not be: "what can be special cased into being allowed to
have local handling by those responsible for a communications medium or
channel?" If anything, it should be: "what, if anything, should be
forced to be handled by people who are not necessarily involved with the
medium or channel in question?" To answer the latter with "first pass
appeals" serves to increase workloads generally and confusion on the
part of those not familiar with the process, though I suppose it would
suit functionaries fond of dismissing inquires with a quick "nothing I
can do".
> I don't see a reason to get a bug filed for each of these.
>
Which is rather my point: filing the bugs as required by the proposal is
pointless, and rather excessive, make work. Disciplinary actions are
already documented, either in situ or privately as befits the action(s)
taken, and such documentation can be dumped to a suitable bug if and
when necessary, but making all such documentation into bugs serves no
useful purpose even if fully automated (which it most certainly is not
at the moment)... unless the goal is to force Council members to filter
their e-mail.
> Paweł
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-16 4:56 ` Dean Stephens
2017-01-16 13:22 ` Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
@ 2017-01-17 17:41 ` Michał Górny
2017-01-20 5:02 ` Dean Stephens
1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2017-01-17 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Dean Stephens; +Cc: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1727 bytes --]
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:56:30 -0500
Dean Stephens <desultory@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 01/15/17 14:23, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> I think this proposal is utterly unworkable in practice. While the
> intention is rather obvious, and heavily geared toward actual
> contributing members of the community at large, the proposed
> definitional scope and structure are incompatible with actual workloads
> already in place.
>
> To provide some perspective to those unfamiliar with the actual volumes
> in consideration here, just on the forums there are typically several
> "users" manually banned per day for posting spam, and perhaps a dozen or
> two profiles manually banned because the profiles themselves were spam,
> in addition to that there are typically hundreds (in some cases
> thousands) of accounts which are effectively automatically banned due to
> their spam content or at the very least matching reported user profiles
> on Stop Forum Spam[1]. Opening a Council bug for each of these would be
> an insurmountable workload if done manually, and at the very least a
> ludicrous volume of completely pointless mail to all Council members;
> but it is *exactly* what would be required by this proposal.
It sounds like you have a major technical problem and you do not even
attempt to solve it. There are many ways of attempting to divert bots,
and I don't think we should really be using inability to handle spam as
excuse not to report your actions.
Of course, regarding multiple replies received, it would probably just
be reasonable to generate simple periodical reports instead.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-17 17:41 ` Michał Górny
@ 2017-01-20 5:02 ` Dean Stephens
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Dean Stephens @ 2017-01-20 5:02 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On 01/17/17 12:41, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:56:30 -0500
> Dean Stephens <desultory@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On 01/15/17 14:23, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>> I think this proposal is utterly unworkable in practice. While the
>> intention is rather obvious, and heavily geared toward actual
>> contributing members of the community at large, the proposed
>> definitional scope and structure are incompatible with actual workloads
>> already in place.
>>
>> To provide some perspective to those unfamiliar with the actual volumes
>> in consideration here, just on the forums there are typically several
>> "users" manually banned per day for posting spam, and perhaps a dozen or
>> two profiles manually banned because the profiles themselves were spam,
>> in addition to that there are typically hundreds (in some cases
>> thousands) of accounts which are effectively automatically banned due to
>> their spam content or at the very least matching reported user profiles
>> on Stop Forum Spam[1]. Opening a Council bug for each of these would be
>> an insurmountable workload if done manually, and at the very least a
>> ludicrous volume of completely pointless mail to all Council members;
>> but it is *exactly* what would be required by this proposal.
>
> It sounds like you have a major technical problem and you do not even
> attempt to solve it. There are many ways of attempting to divert bots,
> and I don't think we should really be using inability to handle spam as
> excuse not to report your actions.
>
It is alright to admit that you are ignorant of a subject, even healthy
to do so. Ignorance is curable. Immediately assuming that others are at
best incompetent is, to put it gently, socially suboptimal.
In case it was somehow unclear to you "effectively automatically banned"
in reference to an automated system that automatically blocks,
effectively banning, those accounts is in place and functioning right
now. The information for those particular accounts is kept around to
document profiles of active spammers and to make remediation trivial in
case of a false positive.
As for other bans being issued regularly, you do realize that any spam
bot worth using would do things like let one or more humans solve
CAPTCHAs, right? And that several classes of CAPTCHA are presently
easier for fully automated bots than for humans? Further, you do realize
that blocking bots would still, by your proposal, explicitly be a
reportable disciplinary action, right?
Ask questions and you might find enlightenment, make accusations and you
will tend to find yourself being ever more ignored.
> Of course, regarding multiple replies received, it would probably just
> be reasonable to generate simple periodical reports instead.
>
The vast majority of which would still be pointless noise, and which
would do nothing to mitigate the burden placed on the Council as an
appeals body not just for actions, but also for actions not taken.
Stuffing something into a report does not magically make it useful,
relevant, or less time consuming.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-15 19:23 [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal Michał Górny
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2017-01-16 4:56 ` Dean Stephens
@ 2017-01-16 20:57 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2017-01-17 17:49 ` Michał Górny
2017-01-17 14:38 ` Daniel Campbell
7 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: William L. Thomson Jr. @ 2017-01-16 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 485 bytes --]
On Sunday, January 15, 2017 8:23:45 PM EST Michał Górny wrote:
>
> What do you think?
We should be discussing ways to attract more people to the project and growing
numbers. Rather than reforming disciplinary action on an every shrinking
community.
IMHO much more needs a reform, like general attitudes all around. Reforming
comrel and policies I do not think will encourage anyone to want to join
Gentoo or help further then project.
--
William L. Thomson Jr.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-16 20:57 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
@ 2017-01-17 17:49 ` Michał Górny
2017-01-17 18:54 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2017-01-17 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1469 bytes --]
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:57:44 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 8:23:45 PM EST Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> We should be discussing ways to attract more people to the project and growing
> numbers. Rather than reforming disciplinary action on an every shrinking
> community.
>
> IMHO much more needs a reform, like general attitudes all around. Reforming
> comrel and policies I do not think will encourage anyone to want to join
> Gentoo or help further then project.
William, if you do not have anything to add to the topic at hand,
please do not reply. Gentoo does not only consist of areas you care
about, and dismissing anything unrelated to them is not helping anyone.
Furthermore, I should point out that the teams performing disciplinary
actions can have strong influence on influx of developers. IRC, Forums
are frequently the areas where the first contact between users
and Gentoo community occurs, and with an unhealthy moderation team it
could be the last.
I'm talking both of the case when moderators abuse their power and ban
users unnecessarily, and of the case when they do not keep the channels
healthy and troublemakers discourage of users. In the end, the only
people that really come to Gentoo are the bullies and the people who
can withstand being bullied.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-17 17:49 ` Michał Górny
@ 2017-01-17 18:54 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2017-01-17 19:03 ` Rich Freeman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: William L. Thomson Jr. @ 2017-01-17 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2668 bytes --]
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 6:49:27 PM EST Michał Górny wrote:
>
> William, if you do not have anything to add to the topic at hand,
> please do not reply. Gentoo does not only consist of areas you care
> about, and dismissing anything unrelated to them is not helping anyone.
This is an area I do care about as it has effected me likely more than anyone.
I am not sure anyone has tried to return for some 8+ years. Or the amount of
attempts I have to return. During every attempt Comrel/Devrel has bee in the
way. A problem they started years ago by getting involved when they need not.
Which is why I say rather than reform. Ditch entirely as it has been EXTREMELY
harmful. Far beyond anything to do with myself personally.
> Furthermore, I should point out that the teams performing disciplinary
> actions can have strong influence on influx of developers. IRC, Forums
> are frequently the areas where the first contact between users
> and Gentoo community occurs, and with an unhealthy moderation team it
> could be the last.
I am quite aware. I have been moderated several times. I have seen the harm
that protecting the community via moderation causes. The damage is far worse
than what they seek to prevent in the first place.
> I'm talking both of the case when moderators abuse their power and ban
> users unnecessarily, and of the case when they do not keep the channels
> healthy and troublemakers discourage of users. In the end, the only
> people that really come to Gentoo are the bullies and the people who
> can withstand being bullied.
I believe allot of the moderation and issues I have faced were abuse of power
and/or completely unnecessary. Most times policies and procedures are not
followed. If nothing else, things were escalated that should have been de-
escalated. Problems created that spanned much longer than the problem seeking
to be addressed. Creating bigger problems and not resolving the issues.
I am not sure anyone around Gentoo has been treated as poorly as I have. Very
few would stick around for the punishment I get on the regular. With everyone
saying do as I say, not as I do....
Not to mention questioning others social skills from people who clearly lack
them to begin with. Most of the problem with Comrel/Devrel comes from having
the wrong people involved. People that lack people skills, make no effort to
establish or build personal relationships or anything of real benefit to
problem resolution. Which is why problems get escalated and become much bigger
and last for years. Assuming you know someone you do not.
--
William L. Thomson Jr.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-17 18:54 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
@ 2017-01-17 19:03 ` Rich Freeman
2017-01-17 19:40 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2017-01-17 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:54 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>
> This is an area I do care about as it has effected me likely more than anyone.
> I am not sure anyone has tried to return for some 8+ years. Or the amount of
> attempts I have to return. During every attempt Comrel/Devrel has bee in the
> way. A problem they started years ago by getting involved when they need not.
>
> ...
>
> I am quite aware. I have been moderated several times. I have seen the harm
> that protecting the community via moderation causes. The damage is far worse
> than what they seek to prevent in the first place.
Hmm, I can't imagine that if you have been moderated several times
that it might have some bearing on why you feel that Comrel/Devrel has
tended to get in the way of your rejoining...
In any case, as has been pointed out you could have appealed these
issues and would likely have gotten a final answer one way or the
other by now. But then we can't just complain about them forever.
> I am not sure anyone around Gentoo has been treated as poorly as I have. Very
> few would stick around for the punishment I get on the regular.
Indeed, most people who regularly get moderated tend to go away. I'm
not sure that is entirely a bad thing.
If people are willing to change they can of course stick around, and
if abuse is a concern that is why we have appeals.
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-17 19:03 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2017-01-17 19:40 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2017-01-17 20:20 ` Rich Freeman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: William L. Thomson Jr. @ 2017-01-17 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3471 bytes --]
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 2:03:56 PM EST Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> Hmm, I can't imagine that if you have been moderated several times
> that it might have some bearing on why you feel that Comrel/Devrel has
> tended to get in the way of your rejoining...
This is actually a new and recent trend. First was in 2015 in comrel IRC
channel. Then the -project ban just recently in 2016. Where people proceeded
to talk about me on list, despite me being unable to reply or defend myself.
The first moderation was on -nfp years ago in 2008. That moderation was
supposed to be temporary and lasted many years. That moderation created all
the problems since. Comrel/Devrel created the whole ill will scenario.
The damage to the foundation is tremendous. I would have resolved things with
the IRS, SPI/SFC years ago. Not to mention Java, etc.
> In any case, as has been pointed out you could have appealed these
> issues and would likely have gotten a final answer one way or the
> other by now. But then we can't just complain about them forever.
I think all of that is a waste of everyone's time. I also see it as futile for
many reasons I stated, even if an appeal is won. It does not make others
forget the past, or start liking someone they do not.
Problems are much bigger and deeper than anything someone could appeal. How
does my reputation get appealed? Being painted as an outcast by a minority and
how I am treated, provoked in ways others are not. Which in turn does not
bring out the best in anyone.
Such damage no one deserves no matter what for volunteering their time.
> > I am not sure anyone around Gentoo has been treated as poorly as I have.
> > Very few would stick around for the punishment I get on the regular.
>
> Indeed, most people who regularly get moderated tend to go away. I'm
> not sure that is entirely a bad thing.
Driving people away for any reason is not good. Who do you think you are? Not
meant directly or as an insult. But driving someone away, assuming another
will replace them. It is not a strategy that is working for Gentoo.
> If people are willing to change they can of course stick around, and
> if abuse is a concern that is why we have appeals.
Problem is people within Gentoo do not change. Their behavior becomes the
status quo. How they see and treat others rubs off on new people. Such that
problems continue because people are tainted and bias from the start.
The problem is NOT the people, but the process. Also if you are to blame the
person. You should also blame who they are interacting with. If there was
actual resolution. People would not leave, and not require moderation.
The real crux is getting rid of the need to moderate in the first place. People
have filters, and other things at their disposal. This acting like children
stuff needs to stop. Not everyone needs to be punished. Jails are full of
people we are trying to force to change their ways.
If you want someone to change, start by changing yourself. If you do not like
how someone behaves. Think what you can do yourself to effect their behavior
in a positive manner. Most times moderation is not likely to change behavior
but encourage the opposite.
Are we not intelligent intellectual people? Must we always resort to crude
methods to resolves problems. Or claim to resolve problems when in fact we are
dismissing them and potentially creating a much worse problem with ill will.
--
William L. Thomson Jr.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-17 19:40 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
@ 2017-01-17 20:20 ` Rich Freeman
2017-01-18 5:33 ` Raymond Jennings
2017-01-18 17:07 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
0 siblings, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2017-01-17 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>
> I think all of that is a waste of everyone's time. I also see it as futile for
> many reasons I stated, even if an appeal is won. It does not make others
> forget the past, or start liking someone they do not.
>
Well, then, I'm not sure why you're still here.
> Problems are much bigger and deeper than anything someone could appeal. How
> does my reputation get appealed? Being painted as an outcast by a minority and
> how I am treated, provoked in ways others are not.
Has anybody divulged any information publicly which damaged your
reputation? I've been trying to be careful to only repeat allegations
that you have yourself posted, without confirming whether or not they
are actually accurate. This is a big reason for the policy about not
publicly announcing disciplinary actions. We DON'T want to harm the
reputations of others. Now, if they go ruining their own reputations
by posting about them, that is outside our control.
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-17 20:20 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2017-01-18 5:33 ` Raymond Jennings
2017-01-18 17:07 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Raymond Jennings @ 2017-01-18 5:33 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 600 bytes --]
I would also like to suggest that comrel be broken up away from a board
that acts as a united group, and split it up into "umpires" of a sort that
can handle cases on an individual basis with no requirement to achieve any
sort of consensus unless desired, and leaving the comrel lead as an appeal
body.
Basically, for manpower reasons, let comrel be -jN, where N is the number
of non-lead comrel emmbers. Use the same principles, but leave decisions
case by case to avoid committee-induced overhead.
There si no point in adding more manpower to comrel if every decision has
to be made as a group.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 731 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-17 20:20 ` Rich Freeman
2017-01-18 5:33 ` Raymond Jennings
@ 2017-01-18 17:07 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: William L. Thomson Jr. @ 2017-01-18 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4822 bytes --]
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:20:13 PM EST Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>
> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> > I think all of that is a waste of everyone's time. I also see it as futile
> > for many reasons I stated, even if an appeal is won. It does not make
> > others forget the past, or start liking someone they do not.
>
> Well, then, I'm not sure why you're still here.
I have a multitude of reasons. I hold out some hope that maybe someday things
will change. If not I have my own interest and benefit outside, as I suspect
most in the community do.
Also to prove a point in a way. Like the email stuff in 2016 was some what to
prove that even by keeping someone out as a developer. You cannot prevent
certain situation. Mailing lists noise was part of the most recent comment as
for why I am not fit in 2015. Despite not being on any in years. If I was being
accused of such, I might as well live up to it. At the same time show it
cannot be prevented from the outside or in. Thus moderation is futile and does
not address the real issue or resolve anything.
At the same time, had I been able to return in 2015. None of the 2016 events
would have taken place. Showing once again how Comrel creates issues, rather
than resolving them. Plus I had held allot of this in for years. It is not
good for me, so better I let it out.
> > Problems are much bigger and deeper than anything someone could appeal.
> > How
> > does my reputation get appealed? Being painted as an outcast by a minority
> > and how I am treated, provoked in ways others are not.
>
> Has anybody divulged any information publicly which damaged your
> reputation?
The information that is public, how I am responded to, and for example talked
about recently on list after ban is all evidence. If you Google my name and
Gentoo, my dev bug will come up as another example.
Every little bit surely does not help ones reputation. More so when the past
is never forgiven or erased. Such that they make events and misconceptions
perpetuate years after any initial issue. Which many have become much larger.
> I've been trying to be careful to only repeat allegations
> that you have yourself posted, without confirming whether or not they
> are actually accurate.
Most all is publicly available and I have provided links. Starting with my
very first post[1]. It takes time to do the research. That was the problem in
2008. The back log of drama has grown over the years. If people would not
spend the time in 2008 when it was smaller. No way they will be able to follow
it over many years.
> This is a big reason for the policy about not
> publicly announcing disciplinary actions. We DON'T want to harm the
> reputations of others. Now, if they go ruining their own reputations
> by posting about them, that is outside our control.
You do not get it. No matter what you conceal, people still see things. No
matter what you call a moderation, suspension, away, etc. It tends to be seen.
These things do not happen in a vacuum. In fact most every issue likely starts
in a public medium. Which that alone will show some trail.
Problem with concealing things is you need to conceal it all, every bit,
piece, and trail. That is impossible with a public community around an open
source project. Which is why less should be made private. I would think it all
needs to be made public, nothing should be private.
HOWEVER, ones own actions should be damage enough to their reputation. Others
do not need to police them to do that harm. Which means disciplinary action
should be avoided as it only further adds to such. That volunteers are being
disciplined is something I am VERY against.
If one is miss-behaving others will see that. Taking disciplinary action in
any form will only harm someones reputation. It can even harm the reputation
of those enacting the discipline. Not to mention the project as a whole.
Why I feel a higher road needs to be taken. People need to work with others to
resolve any issue. Such that disciplinary actions are never taken. I have
really never seen such a case where it is really necessary. Short of common
sense stuff. Most major issues likely have other solutions.
I have shown examples of other and what I feel is better ways of doing things.
Others refuse to consider such and take a different harsh technical approach
to a human problem. For example[2]
I have provided countless suggestions on improving recruiting, and aspects of
comrel/devrel for years. Yet things get worse, less personal, more policy.
1. https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/
c52da1d4292cb96912c0f44a54927f86
2. https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/
c7baaaac1013d87adf4e0e6bcd3cbf8c
--
William L. Thomson Jr.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-15 19:23 [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal Michał Górny
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2017-01-16 20:57 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
@ 2017-01-17 14:38 ` Daniel Campbell
2017-01-17 15:26 ` Rich Freeman
2017-01-17 18:05 ` Michał Górny
7 siblings, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Campbell @ 2017-01-17 14:38 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1446 bytes --]
On 01/15/2017 11:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> It should be noted that an unauthorized disclosure of sensitive
> information by any party involved would be a base for a strong
> disciplinary action.
Overall fair procedures and points, but this particular part punishes
whistleblowing, from inside *or* outside Gentoo. If a given
target/subject decides to share all related communications to make their
points publicly, the above suggestion recommends the subject is silenced
and/or ejected for revealing something directly involving them.
If the intent is to make whistleblowing risky or otherwise (socially)
dangerous, then it'll get the job done, but at a cost to community
morale over the long term. I don't support a procedure that punishes
people for pointing out when it (the procedure) is not working correctly.
I think a more fair restriction would be to place it on Comrel and
Council, as they are being trusted to not share private information.
What the two (or more?) sides do in a dispute isn't something we can
reasonably control, except on our own infrastructure. I find it
unnecessary and meaningless to place sanctions on users or other
participants of a conflict if they choose to make their communications
public. It's /their/ dirty laundry, after all.
--
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-17 14:38 ` Daniel Campbell
@ 2017-01-17 15:26 ` Rich Freeman
2017-01-17 18:05 ` Michał Górny
1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2017-01-17 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I think a more fair restriction would be to place it on Comrel and
> Council, as they are being trusted to not share private information.
++, in general (and anybody else doing the actual moderation/etc).
> What the two (or more?) sides do in a dispute isn't something we can
> reasonably control, except on our own infrastructure. I find it
> unnecessary and meaningless to place sanctions on users or other
> participants of a conflict if they choose to make their communications
> public. It's /their/ dirty laundry, after all.
I tend to agree, but perhaps it would still make sense to restrict the
use of Gentoo media for such things (anything bearing our trademark).
My thinking is that we really don't want the community to be full of
petty personal bickering.
It isn't something I feel strongly about. I'm more concerned about
people entrusted with personal information keeping it private.
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-17 14:38 ` Daniel Campbell
2017-01-17 15:26 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2017-01-17 18:05 ` Michał Górny
2017-01-17 18:13 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2017-01-18 17:31 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
1 sibling, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2017-01-17 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Daniel Campbell; +Cc: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2910 bytes --]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 06:38:10 -0800
Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 01/15/2017 11:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > It should be noted that an unauthorized disclosure of sensitive
> > information by any party involved would be a base for a strong
> > disciplinary action.
>
> Overall fair procedures and points, but this particular part punishes
> whistleblowing, from inside *or* outside Gentoo. If a given
> target/subject decides to share all related communications to make their
> points publicly, the above suggestion recommends the subject is silenced
> and/or ejected for revealing something directly involving them.
>
> If the intent is to make whistleblowing risky or otherwise (socially)
> dangerous, then it'll get the job done, but at a cost to community
> morale over the long term. I don't support a procedure that punishes
> people for pointing out when it (the procedure) is not working correctly.
>
> I think a more fair restriction would be to place it on Comrel and
> Council, as they are being trusted to not share private information.
> What the two (or more?) sides do in a dispute isn't something we can
> reasonably control, except on our own infrastructure. I find it
> unnecessary and meaningless to place sanctions on users or other
> participants of a conflict if they choose to make their communications
> public. It's /their/ dirty laundry, after all.
This particular point, aside to ensuring that teams keep the necessary
secrecy, serves the goals:
1. to discourage users from taking 'revenge' on others by disclosing
their secrets,
2. to discourage users from bickering and turning Gentoo into a public
stoning place whenever they are unhappy with a disciplinary decision.
The first point is more important. Consider the following case. Alice
tells Bob her secret. Some time later Bob starts bullying Alice.
Eventually, Alice files a complaint at ComRel and Bob gets banned. Now,
Bob wants to reveal Alice's secret to take revenge on her.
Do you really think he should be allowed do that, just because he
disagrees with the decision? Because I certainly don't think we should
support behavior like that, and as far as I'm concerned a person that
does that should be isolated from the Gentoo community.
The second point has already been covered by Rich. If you believe
the decision was unjust, appeal. If your appeal was overthrown, get on
with it. We don't really need people turning themselves into martyrs,
demanding public judgment and ComRel stoning three times a day.
I know this rule won't prohibit this completely but I believe we're
really better off without public prosecutions. I should also point out
that some people jump straight to this without even filing an appeal --
and I think that's the best proof we need.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-17 18:05 ` Michał Górny
@ 2017-01-17 18:13 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2017-01-18 17:31 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Kristian Fiskerstrand @ 2017-01-17 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project, Daniel Campbell
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1039 bytes --]
On 01/17/2017 07:05 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> The first point is more important. Consider the following case. Alice
> tells Bob her secret. Some time later Bob starts bullying Alice.
> Eventually, Alice files a complaint at ComRel and Bob gets banned. Now,
> Bob wants to reveal Alice's secret to take revenge on her.
>
> Do you really think he should be allowed do that, just because he
> disagrees with the decision? Because I certainly don't think we should
> support behavior like that, and as far as I'm concerned a person that
> does that should be isolated from the Gentoo community.
If Bob has already been evicted from the project I don't believe it
comes down to a question of supporting behavior, Gentoo would have no
rights in the matter as it is not a party to the dispute, and any
attempt to restrict it is likely /ultra vires/ and as such /void ab initio/.
--
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-17 18:05 ` Michał Górny
2017-01-17 18:13 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
@ 2017-01-18 17:31 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2017-01-18 18:25 ` Michał Górny
1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: William L. Thomson Jr. @ 2017-01-18 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1751 bytes --]
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 7:05:30 PM EST Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 06:38:10 -0800
>
> Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > I think a more fair restriction would be to place it on Comrel and
> > Council, as they are being trusted to not share private information.
> > What the two (or more?) sides do in a dispute isn't something we can
> > reasonably control, except on our own infrastructure. I find it
> > unnecessary and meaningless to place sanctions on users or other
> > participants of a conflict if they choose to make their communications
> > public. It's /their/ dirty laundry, after all.
>
> This particular point, aside to ensuring that teams keep the necessary
> secrecy, serves the goals:
>
> 1. to discourage users from taking 'revenge' on others by disclosing
> their secrets,
>
> 2. to discourage users from bickering and turning Gentoo into a public
> stoning place whenever they are unhappy with a disciplinary decision.
>
> The first point is more important. Consider the following case. Alice
> tells Bob her secret. Some time later Bob starts bullying Alice.
> Eventually, Alice files a complaint at ComRel and Bob gets banned. Now,
> Bob wants to reveal Alice's secret to take revenge on her.
Making everything public ensures no secrets. Privacy and secrecy should not
exist or be needed for a public open source project. With the only exception
being security vulnerabilities for obvious reason.
Any event being handled likely started in public to begin with, thus should
remain that way for 100% transparency. Also to ensure no problems with leaking
or making private/secret information public. Solves many problems.
--
William L. Thomson Jr.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-18 17:31 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
@ 2017-01-18 18:25 ` Michał Górny
2017-01-18 18:31 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2017-01-18 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw
To: William L. Thomson Jr.; +Cc: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2079 bytes --]
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:31:14 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 7:05:30 PM EST Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 06:38:10 -0800
> >
> > Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think a more fair restriction would be to place it on Comrel and
> > > Council, as they are being trusted to not share private information.
> > > What the two (or more?) sides do in a dispute isn't something we can
> > > reasonably control, except on our own infrastructure. I find it
> > > unnecessary and meaningless to place sanctions on users or other
> > > participants of a conflict if they choose to make their communications
> > > public. It's /their/ dirty laundry, after all.
> >
> > This particular point, aside to ensuring that teams keep the necessary
> > secrecy, serves the goals:
> >
> > 1. to discourage users from taking 'revenge' on others by disclosing
> > their secrets,
> >
> > 2. to discourage users from bickering and turning Gentoo into a public
> > stoning place whenever they are unhappy with a disciplinary decision.
> >
> > The first point is more important. Consider the following case. Alice
> > tells Bob her secret. Some time later Bob starts bullying Alice.
> > Eventually, Alice files a complaint at ComRel and Bob gets banned. Now,
> > Bob wants to reveal Alice's secret to take revenge on her.
>
> Making everything public ensures no secrets. Privacy and secrecy should not
> exist or be needed for a public open source project. With the only exception
> being security vulnerabilities for obvious reason.
>
> Any event being handled likely started in public to begin with, thus should
> remain that way for 100% transparency. Also to ensure no problems with leaking
> or making private/secret information public. Solves many problems.
I can understand that you have no life outside Gentoo but some people
do, and they have a right to keep them private.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-18 18:25 ` Michał Górny
@ 2017-01-18 18:31 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2017-01-18 19:05 ` Rich Freeman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: William L. Thomson Jr. @ 2017-01-18 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1133 bytes --]
On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 7:25:53 PM EST Michał Górny wrote:
>
> I can understand that you have no life outside Gentoo but some people
> do, and they have a right to keep them private.
Insults are completely uncalled for!
You do not know me what so ever. I am quite social and have a life outside of
Gentoo. Not to mention a business and other things. Maybe go talk to a Gentoo
Dev who has met me, or knows me a bit.
People need to stop assuming they know others they do not. Live in different
countries, have no personal contact. Know absolutely nothing, yet make wild
assumptions and insulting comments. Maybe make an effort to get to know
someone before judging and commenting on aspects of their life you have no
knowledge of. The nerve of some people, not sure who people thing they are
casting stones living in glass houses.
This is the atmosphere and attitudes surrounding Gentoo that MUST change.
People are flat out unfriendly, judge others, and make insulting comments. It
is really amazing what is tolerated, and what is considered a CoC violation.
--
William L. Thomson Jr.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-18 18:31 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
@ 2017-01-18 19:05 ` Rich Freeman
2017-01-18 19:13 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2017-01-18 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:31 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>
> It is really amazing what is tolerated, and what is considered a CoC violation.
>
Keep in mind that "tolerated" and "CoC violation" are different
things. Something can be a CoC violation and be either tolerated or
not. There are a lot of things I'd prefer not be tolerated which are,
and a lot of it comes down to trying to find a balance in enforcement.
The stuff that does get serious enforcement tends to be fairly
egregious from what I've seen, and rarely are all the details of what
actually happened the things that discussed on the lists or the things
that are commonly known.
Put another way, from what I've observed Comrel is about as
understaffed as any other part of Gentoo, so for them to go through
all the trouble to actually do something to somebody, they really have
to get their attention in a sustained way...
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal
2017-01-18 19:05 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2017-01-18 19:13 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: William L. Thomson Jr. @ 2017-01-18 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2587 bytes --]
On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 2:05:54 PM EST Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:31 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>
> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> > It is really amazing what is tolerated, and what is considered a CoC
> > violation.
> Keep in mind that "tolerated" and "CoC violation" are different
> things.
Where does set an example for others to follow fall?
> Something can be a CoC violation and be either tolerated or
> not. There are a lot of things I'd prefer not be tolerated which are,
> and a lot of it comes down to trying to find a balance in enforcement.
Or just get rid of enforcement as it is very unfair and biased.
> The stuff that does get serious enforcement tends to be fairly
> egregious from what I've seen, and rarely are all the details of what
> actually happened the things that discussed on the lists or the things
> that are commonly known.
That is complete BS. I have never done anything severe. Go try to find evidence
of such. I can show you countless examples of clear CoC violations. I have
mentioned many on list. Yet I was banned recent in 2016 for 7 days.
None of this makes any logical sense. The criteria is not consistent.
Application and enforcement is not consistent. The whole thing is a mess.
> Put another way, from what I've observed Comrel is about as
> understaffed as any other part of Gentoo, so for them to go through
> all the trouble to actually do something to somebody, they really have
> to get their attention in a sustained way...
Or simply not be liked by those with such powers. I have seen others, which a
recent post was a perfect example of a clear CoC violation. Not to mention
creating a toxic community that is very unfriendly. While minor things get
punished.
I have never insulted someone on list. I have never talked about anyone who
was banned on list. I have not used fowl language in IRC and other things. Yet
I am not right for Gentoo yet people who do such are?
These other people who are "right" for Gentoo, have horrible attitudes,
approaches to other people, and are creating a really bad atmosphere. It is of
no wonder people are not coming to Gentoo.
I very much believe I am not the problem but many who are Developers are the
problem. Their attitudes and how they interact with others needs to change. In
order for more to be attracted to the project. This is simple logic.
No one wants to be around or work with unfriendly rude insulting people.
I am not one of those.... Explains why I am not right but others are. Makes
allot of sense.
--
William L. Thomson Jr.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread