[gentoo-project] Council meeting: Tuesday 2013-10-08, 19:00 UTC

[gentoo-project] Council meeting: Tuesday 2013-10-08, 19:00 UTC

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1004 bytes --]


The next council meeting will be on Tuesday 2013-10-08, 19:00 UTC [1]
in the #gentoo-council channel on Freenode.

Agenda:

1. Introduction and roll call

2. Resume discussion on the new Code of Conduct [2-5]

3. Open bugs with council involvement
   Bug 477030: Missing summary for 20130611 council meeting [6]
   Bug 481202: Tracker - Documentation or Implementation Issues for Dropping
               of Separate /usr Support [7]

4. Open floor


[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/utctolocal.html?time=19:00
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3061
[3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2470
[4] http://dev.gentooexperimental.org/~scarabeus/gentoo-coc.txt
[5] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130611.txt
[6] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477030
[7] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481202

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct (was: Council meeting: Tuesday 2013-10-08, 19:00 UTC)

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2081 bytes --]

>>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, Andreas K Huettel wrote:

> 2. Resume discussion on the new Code of Conduct [2-5]

I'd like to resume the discussion already now, before the meeting.

1. I think that section "Limited list of bad behaviour examples" could
be improved. In its current form, it is mostly redundant with the
second paragraph of "Be respectful".

Furthermore, it goes too far if the scope of that section applies to
Gentoo mirrors, i.e. package content:

  <ulm> scarabeus: section "examples of inappropriate behavior", could
        you clarify what is considered as "public accessible areas"?
        would gentoo mirrors count as such?
  <scarabeus> oh yes, those do count
  [quoted from log of 20130611 council meeting]

This would imply mirror restriction for some of our packages
(mostly fortune cookies and some artwork, but also packages like
app-admin/sudo). However, with USE=offensive we already have a
mechanism in place that covers such cases, so I believe that no
further action is needed there.

I therefore suggest that we replace the whole section by the
"Unacceptable behaviour" section from our current CoC:
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct#Unacceptable_behaviour

2. The last section uses the term "enforcer". According to
Merriam-Webster dictionary:

  Definition of ENFORCER
  1 :  one that enforces
  2 a :  a violent criminal employed by a crime syndicate;
         especially : hit man 1
    b :  player (as in ice hockey) known for rough play and fighting

It looks like the word has negative connotations and should be
avoided. (The current CoC uses "proctor" instead.) But maybe native
speakers could comment on this?

3. The text should use consistent spelling. Currently, both British
("behaviour") and American ("honored") spelling variants occur.

Ulrich

> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3061
> [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2470
> [4] http://dev.gentooexperimental.org/~scarabeus/gentoo-coc.txt
> [5] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130611.txt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct (was: Council meeting: Tuesday 2013-10-08, 19:00 UTC)

[Tomáš Chvátal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1121 bytes --]

2013/10/1 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
No idea from me on 1st question, up to Markos to decide.


> 2. The last section uses the term "enforcer". According to
> Merriam-Webster dictionary:
>
>   Definition of ENFORCER
>   1 :  one that enforces
>   2 a :  a violent criminal employed by a crime syndicate;
>          especially : hit man 1
>     b :  player (as in ice hockey) known for rough play and fighting
>
> It looks like the word has negative connotations and should be
> avoided. (The current CoC uses "proctor" instead.) But maybe native
> speakers could comment on this?
>

We had proctors project which failed up horribly, thats why I put something
else that does not have the stigma.
But I like the hitman note :)
Anyway definition 1 "one that enforces" is sufficient in my eyes, so I am
for keeping it in place.


>
> 3. The text should use consistent spelling. Currently, both British
> ("behaviour") and American ("honored") spelling variants occur.
>

Yeah that needs fixing, I used british when I wrote it but copyied stuff
use US one.

As we are US based org any American willing to fix it? :)

Tom

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1791 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct (was: Council meeting: Tuesday 2013-10-08, 19:00 UTC)

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'd like to resume the discussion already now, before the meeting.
>

I guess my question is what is wrong with the current CoC?  It seems
like the new CoC basically says the same stuff in a different way, and
is a bit awkward (granted, I'm sure the first draft of the original
CoC was as well).  Why take time to basically re-invent a new CoC
rather than just tweak the existing one, assuming there is anything
that needs tweaking.

My sense is that the real complaint has been that the old CoC wasn't
enforced.  Simply writing a new one won't change that.  Now, it seems
like Comrel has been working to change all of that.  If so, would it
make sense to give them time and only fix things if they're actually
broken.

If we want to update the enforcement section to point to Comrel
instead of Proctors that seems fine to me.

I think the new CoC is well-intended, and it could very well be made
into a good policy.   I just don't see how it really improves
anything.

If somebody wants to point to some theme in the new CoC that is a big
improvement over the old one I'm all ears.

If we do change the CoC I'd probably make it shorter.  The old CoC
says in bullets what the new one seems to say in sections.  I know
that is a bit ironic coming from me...

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct (was: Council meeting: Tuesday 2013-10-08, 19:00 UTC)

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> We had proctors project which failed up horribly, thats why I put something
> else that does not have the stigma.

Honestly, it seems to me that this failure is almost the entire reason
that we're re-writing the thing, and I don't really see how the new
version is any different from the old.  I think the previous failure
was in execution, not in concept (and I don't blame the Proctors
themselves for that).

My sense is that the real complaint has been that the old CoC wasn't
enforced.  Simply writing a new one won't change that.  Now, it seems
like Comrel has been working to change all of that.  If so, would it
make sense to give them time and only fix things if they're actually
broken.

So, why rewrite it, vs just improving the old policy?  If we want to update
the enforcement section of the old CoC to point to Comrel instead of
Proctors that seems fine to me.

I think the new CoC is well-intended, and it could very well be made
into a good policy.   I just don't see how it really improves
anything.

If we do want to continue with the new CoC I'd probably make it shorter.
The old CoC says in bullets what the new one seems to say in sections.
I know that is a bit ironic coming from me...

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct

[Wulf C. Krueger]

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

Hello Rich,

out of curiosity: The (old or new) CoC is not to blame, the proctors
were not to blame (you wrote that in another email in this thread) and,
so, basically all you want to change is

> updat[ing] the enforcement section to point to Comrel instead of 
> Proctors [...]

If that's so, you're exchanging people (who were not to blame in the
first place) and expect what exactly to, uh, change?

Or to pose the question differently: Why will this attempt succeed
where the first one failed?

- -- 
Best regards, Wulf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlJKtvcACgkQnuVXRcSi+5puSgCgxxO50zx2nXvElxmdHIFvfmOL
JGoAoMJm+yH5Evu1RMzegmAAjHS48PE3
=kxmO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Wulf C. Krueger <wk@mailstation.de> wrote:
>
> out of curiosity: The (old or new) CoC is not to blame, the proctors
> were not to blame (you wrote that in another email in this thread) and,
> so, basically all you want to change is
>
>> updat[ing] the enforcement section to point to Comrel instead of
>> Proctors [...]
>
> If that's so, you're exchanging people (who were not to blame in the
> first place) and expect what exactly to, uh, change?
>
> Or to pose the question differently: Why will this attempt succeed
> where the first one failed?

Maybe my email wasn't clear - I don't expect it to succeed and am
questioning why we're doing this...

I expect that revising the old CoC will not change anything, except
perhaps to remove some outdated bits.

I expect that the newly proposed Coc will not change anything.

If we want to spend time tweaking the CoC doing the former involves
less effort.  I'm not really a proponent of doing either, but if we
want a new CoC I think at the very least somebody needs to explain
what it will accomplish.

What will change things is the willingness to actually enforce the
CoC.  Markos has communicated that he intends to do just that, and for
my part on the Council (the court of appeal) I certainly will do what
I can to back him up.  That isn't to say that I won't fairly evaluate
appeals, but I'm not going to second-guess every little temporary list
ban.  I don't think our policies are the problem - I suspect the
original CoC would actually have done a lot of good if the Proctors
had been allowed to do their job.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

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

On 10/01/2013 06:45 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, Andreas K Huettel wrote:
> 
>> 2. Resume discussion on the new Code of Conduct [2-5]
> 
> I'd like to resume the discussion already now, before the meeting.
> 
> 1. I think that section "Limited list of bad behaviour examples" could
> be improved. In its current form, it is mostly redundant with the
> second paragraph of "Be respectful".
> 
> Furthermore, it goes too far if the scope of that section applies to
> Gentoo mirrors, i.e. package content:
> 
>   <ulm> scarabeus: section "examples of inappropriate behavior", could
>         you clarify what is considered as "public accessible areas"?
>         would gentoo mirrors count as such?
>   <scarabeus> oh yes, those do count
>   [quoted from log of 20130611 council meeting]
> 
> This would imply mirror restriction for some of our packages
> (mostly fortune cookies and some artwork, but also packages like
> app-admin/sudo). However, with USE=offensive we already have a
> mechanism in place that covers such cases, so I believe that no
> further action is needed there.
> 
Mirror restricting something like sudo because of the optional and
properly named offensive use flag is rediculous. Either this kind of
thing is okay and it stays, or we won't allow it and the flag should be
removed.  Please, sanity first, mirror restricting something with
offensive language just hurts user experience for the (in this case
core) package.

Thanks,
Zero

> I therefore suggest that we replace the whole section by the
> "Unacceptable behaviour" section from our current CoC:
> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct#Unacceptable_behaviour
> 
> 2. The last section uses the term "enforcer". According to
> Merriam-Webster dictionary:
> 
>   Definition of ENFORCER
>   1 :  one that enforces
>   2 a :  a violent criminal employed by a crime syndicate;
>          especially : hit man 1
>     b :  player (as in ice hockey) known for rough play and fighting
> 
> It looks like the word has negative connotations and should be
> avoided. (The current CoC uses "proctor" instead.) But maybe native
> speakers could comment on this?
> 
> 3. The text should use consistent spelling. Currently, both British
> ("behaviour") and American ("honored") spelling variants occur.
> 
> Ulrich
> 
>> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3061
>> [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2470
>> [4] http://dev.gentooexperimental.org/~scarabeus/gentoo-coc.txt
>> [5] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130611.txt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=mnvW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct

[hasufell]

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

On 10/01/2013 03:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 
> That isn't to say that I won't fairly evaluate appeals, but I'm not
> going to second-guess every little temporary list ban.


No one here dares to ban long-term trolls from the list. They are
tolerated.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSSwXpAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWz3jgH/RmrteRh4H8hpSMZ1OykO0oE
ugrqUNEoNOcPpNe+aaYl0yvEPcYcSQc1JAeqoXzA+lCueKYrRGAGsyikgloI9fWB
/FsfjVQV4yjwfmlqx4dYvgFGr2x8g14poGztN6TXbDXFWagX1sC5DHvs3SQiBq8n
ta+vm6iXRtsisXP9HNKXDyTjVoKqKtCkBW+/6qUYxK9P65azuv5g4lj2IpgZU1dq
avH1Z1VKmXlJg0beKICLKUyh3InGUE9EbCqeikN/inwXtsf9R8Oy0YCUIhh9r67W
zbqVn0JemvuxuqfhXFZ8sLUX22Iklio02qiXyMcMKCItbK/sp+QV+XqSgG/0xXU=
=u0YD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct

[Markos Chandras]

On 10/01/2013 06:27 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 03:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 
>> That isn't to say that I won't fairly evaluate appeals, but I'm not
>> going to second-guess every little temporary list ban.
> 
> 
> No one here dares to ban long-term trolls from the list. They are
> tolerated.
> 

This contributes nothing to the discussion does it? From what I can
tell, it's you who are trolling right now and tries to derail the
discussion.
The ComRel was formed only a week ago and no trolls have appeared since
then. Or do you just want us to start banning people to prove that we
are willing to do it?

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 10/01/2013 01:07 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> Mirror restricting something like sudo because of the optional and
> properly named offensive use flag is rediculous. Either this kind of
> thing is okay and it stays, or we won't allow it and the flag should be
> removed.  Please, sanity first, mirror restricting something with
> offensive language just hurts user experience for the (in this case
> core) package.
>
> Thanks,
> Zero
>

We need USE=offensive for the linux kernel.  I just grepped the source 
tree for George Carlin's seven dirty words [1] and found three of seven 
use liberally in there.

The point being that "dirty words" are not offensive in the right 
context and have long been part of a comedy tradition.  I don't want to 
see Gentoo, or human society, sanitized of everything that might be 
found offensive in some context in the name of protecting people's 
sensibilities in all contexts.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words


-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
Chair of Information Technology
D'Youville College
Buffalo, NY 14201
(716) 829-8197

Re: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Dienstag 01 Oktober 2013, 13:40:00 schrieb Anthony G. Basile:
> 
> We need USE=offensive for the linux kernel.  I just grepped the source
> tree for George Carlin's seven dirty words [1] and found three of seven
> use liberally in there.
> 

Only one country cares about the seven words, and it's suspended right now.

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
kde, sci, arm, tex, printing

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct

[hasufell]

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

On 10/01/2013 07:34 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 06:27 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> On 10/01/2013 03:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> 
>>> That isn't to say that I won't fairly evaluate appeals, but I'm
>>> not going to second-guess every little temporary list ban.
>> 
>> 
>> No one here dares to ban long-term trolls from the list. They
>> are tolerated.
>> 
> 
> This contributes nothing to the discussion does it? From what I
> can tell, it's you who are trolling right now and tries to derail
> the discussion. The ComRel was formed only a week ago and no trolls
> have appeared since then. Or do you just want us to start banning
> people to prove that we are willing to do it?
> 

No, I'm just explaining my view on the usefulness of shaping CoC
wording and stating that our MLs are practically not moderated.

That is not trolling. So yes, it is yet to prove that something has
actually changed. Do you want me to open a new thread for this comment?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSSxLjAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzpEAH/2p/iB9AyZ6H1s/vqDNL7dfH
6SNcEFlO/ixkmyrqfc8kj+/bPKan2NIvwkya7o8wK6YCpU4TiMpbDE4Gn7wcmNGw
pMWOP0B3mIqqQdTUfLp0DOwAjyU9SA23N5DWFF0McB83WapyIWezwKoaOkOXnF5O
G+OgNzVzLtIxwkuPNb7DEmGXk+RxhqfQpcOTC+8DN5EcxYI7jJ5dzEvd/EIPvTN4
6jRyLyEk8ZF37v0lzVxPBRSsKBF+H7J47cdRx905gsUU5vvKBOysxjCI+QirDaL2
PiOzGQcRslme6CquCiNl32naunzxeGRNUAoI5AlKDqqbuDY6tBOFz3TC+NC+l4A=
=Qt/h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct

[Ciaran McCreesh]

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

On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 20:22:27 +0200
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> No, I'm just explaining my view on the usefulness of shaping CoC
> wording and stating that our MLs are practically not moderated.
> 
> That is not trolling.

A good proportion of the uses of the terms "trolling", "poisonous",
etc around here simply mean "disagreeing with someone", so by those
definitions it is.

- -- 
Ciaran McCreesh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlJLFHMACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGtGgCeKW95FuPv3GYf3wI58b/+u0Dm
oP8AnAkRDsRXeh/wqBHCkirlgBXYHyQh
=5F6H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct

[Markos Chandras]

On 10/01/2013 07:22 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 07:34 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 10/01/2013 06:27 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2013 03:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>>> That isn't to say that I won't fairly evaluate appeals, but I'm
>>>> not going to second-guess every little temporary list ban.
>>>
>>>
>>> No one here dares to ban long-term trolls from the list. They
>>> are tolerated.
>>>
> 
>> This contributes nothing to the discussion does it? From what I
>> can tell, it's you who are trolling right now and tries to derail
>> the discussion. The ComRel was formed only a week ago and no trolls
>> have appeared since then. Or do you just want us to start banning
>> people to prove that we are willing to do it?
> 
> 
> No, I'm just explaining my view on the usefulness of shaping CoC
> wording and stating that our MLs are practically not moderated.
> 
> That is not trolling. So yes, it is yet to prove that something has
> actually changed. Do you want me to open a new thread for this comment?
> 

We do not need to prove anything to anyone. The fact that *you* can't
see ComRel operating, it does not mean we are idling. The mailing lists
are not practically moderated because we assumed that people are capable
to have professional discussions. Clearly we were wrong and I already
announced our intention to changed that. Like I said, that e-mail was
send only a week ago and since then we haven't seen any problem.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct

[Markos Chandras]

On 10/01/2013 07:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 20:22:27 +0200
> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> No, I'm just explaining my view on the usefulness of shaping CoC
>> wording and stating that our MLs are practically not moderated.
> 
>> That is not trolling.
> 
> A good proportion of the uses of the terms "trolling", "poisonous",
> etc around here simply mean "disagreeing with someone", so by those
> definitions it is.
> 
> 

This is a multicultural community. Not all people understand "English"
the way you do. In other languages, poisonous can have various different
meanings depending on the context. But I understand your need to comment
on a total unrelated issue to this thread.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013, Rick "Zero Chaos" Farina wrote:

> On 10/01/2013 06:45 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> This would imply mirror restriction for some of our packages
>> (mostly fortune cookies and some artwork, but also packages like
>> app-admin/sudo). However, with USE=offensive we already have a
>> mechanism in place that covers such cases, so I believe that no
>> further action is needed there.

> Mirror restricting something like sudo because of the optional and
> properly named offensive use flag is rediculous. Either this kind of
> thing is okay and it stays, or we won't allow it and the flag should
> be removed. Please, sanity first, mirror restricting something with
> offensive language just hurts user experience for the (in this case
> core) package.

Exactly. The wording of the CoC should be changed, to make clear that
it applies only to communication between individuals, not to packages
that we distribute.

I'd also be fine with rich0's suggestion, i.e. to use the existing CoC
as a starting point.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct

[hasufell]

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

On 10/01/2013 08:35 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 07:22 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> On 10/01/2013 07:34 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2013 06:27 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>>> On 10/01/2013 03:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> That isn't to say that I won't fairly evaluate appeals, but
>>>>> I'm not going to second-guess every little temporary list
>>>>> ban.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> No one here dares to ban long-term trolls from the list.
>>>> They are tolerated.
>>>> 
>> 
>>> This contributes nothing to the discussion does it? From what
>>> I can tell, it's you who are trolling right now and tries to
>>> derail the discussion. The ComRel was formed only a week ago
>>> and no trolls have appeared since then. Or do you just want us
>>> to start banning people to prove that we are willing to do it?
>> 
>> 
>> No, I'm just explaining my view on the usefulness of shaping CoC 
>> wording and stating that our MLs are practically not moderated.
>> 
>> That is not trolling. So yes, it is yet to prove that something
>> has actually changed. Do you want me to open a new thread for
>> this comment?
>> 
> 
> We do not need to prove anything to anyone. The fact that *you*
> can't see ComRel operating, it does not mean we are idling.


I'm sorry if it sounded like that. I do not believe you are idling.

> The mailing lists are not practically moderated because we assumed
> that people are capable to have professional discussions. Clearly
> we were wrong and I already announced our intention to changed
> that.

Ok.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSSyCiAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzLIoH/AoIx6M+MM7zIon+oMwQMyXE
M7RwNhyPD6dyTVmqaGFrJCiYT75PJS11dPFQP6lTHhbhBhMH5lu/8iS3CR0yjFUy
xULjakqfvm27QV3KqGVDGuaPwER1eAC36oe0xn/Nqc8z/pAwQMqeZOn0Xo0DnSUn
uXZrDUYnEwFq1Y20euBB9vKhwfJ/GA1myiNBlhe7bcEdhbOZ0NDIuq5Bw2lqv+sk
rmQuzZ3w+I+VQnKalp7ZrHajDtK6pa4ZFOnUGCU7p9JkZxM7OtwryQUeh2UVTk9w
rPc1j5l8EZh1oTGkYKehOI89igALbFcDDmNzILM+dBjc7hns3XlXslEXkI9881c=
=bu9Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct

[Patrick Lauer]

On 10/02/2013 01:34 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 06:27 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> On 10/01/2013 03:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> That isn't to say that I won't fairly evaluate appeals, but I'm not
>>> going to second-guess every little temporary list ban.
>>
>>
>> No one here dares to ban long-term trolls from the list. They are
>> tolerated.
>>
> 
> This contributes nothing to the discussion does it? From what I can
> tell, it's you who are trolling right now and tries to derail the
> discussion.

... are you trying a reverse-troll with an added ad hominem?
'cause if you did you get bonus points for style

> The ComRel was formed only a week ago and no trolls have appeared since
> then. Or do you just want us to start banning people to prove that we
> are willing to do it?
> 
I guess you're trying to ignore the historical (hysterical?) context of
roughly the last decade to make a point

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct (was: Council meeting: Tuesday 2013-10-08, 19:00 UTC)

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1121 bytes --]

On 07:35 Tue 01 Oct     , Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > We had proctors project which failed up horribly, thats why I put something
> > else that does not have the stigma.

Yeah, good call. Other less hostile options are things like community 
action team, community response team, or just the vaguer community 
relations.

> Honestly, it seems to me that this failure is almost the entire reason
> that we're re-writing the thing, and I don't really see how the new
> version is any different from the old.  I think the previous failure
> was in execution, not in concept (and I don't blame the Proctors
> themselves for that).

I agree. It's in large part because we as a council failed to back them 
up sufficiently. As soon as they got any heat, they were on their own.

The policy is fine, what we need is the execution and the high-level 
support behind it.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux <http://dberkholz.com>
Analyst, RedMonk <http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Code of conduct (was: Council meeting: Tuesday 2013-10-08, 19:00 UTC)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 843 bytes --]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:07:42 -0500
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Honestly, it seems to me that this failure is almost the entire
> > reason that we're re-writing the thing, and I don't really see how
> > the new version is any different from the old.  I think the
> > previous failure was in execution, not in concept (and I don't
> > blame the Proctors themselves for that).
> 
> I agree. It's in large part because we as a council failed to back
> them up sufficiently. As soon as they got any heat, they were on
> their own.

Yes, it's important for the success of these kinds of policies that the
higher ups to provide unconditional and unquestioning support to their
team. One mustn't allow their actions to be criticised or it undermines
their ability to act without restraint.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]