From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0176D139085 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:16:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D2CAEE0D6E; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:16:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9474AE0D6D for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:16:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wim.fritz.box (unknown [IPv6:2001:984:fcd5:1:9f7a:61db:6e7d:c0f5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jer) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C933340BEA for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:16:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 12:16:40 +0100 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal Message-ID: <20170116121640.0c8ac7cd@wim.fritz.box> In-Reply-To: References: <20170115195209.70d3a748.mgorny@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Foundation X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: e7491eee-0826-4f37-ba70-509a519b9029 X-Archives-Hash: d87dbc234477c6b7c9ab5f12f8fd481f On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:25:34 +0000 (UTC) "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" 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