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 4E3A51382C5 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 22:29:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4669DE084E; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 22:29:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from avasout05.plus.net (avasout05.plus.net [84.93.230.250]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E95D9E0843 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 22:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.6.147] ([212.159.46.162]) by smtp with ESMTP id 77CDf3l5E1fhE77CEfBEvD; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:29:30 +0100 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=J9KEEjvS c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=RuViaDnnNG9rfPLW4VJocg==:117 a=RuViaDnnNG9rfPLW4VJocg==:17 a=13zjGPudsaEWiJwPRgMA:9 a=xtxXYLxNAAAA:8 a=hC9lUiaA5SfYdfCVxPAA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=uoeMcbW2kcfUK5Golj8A:9 a=ONNS8QRKHyMA:10 a=xts0dhWdiJbonKbuqhAr:22 Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <1523640697.5139.2.camel@gentoo.org> <88cd6d1c-8040-a6c2-8f1b-7d19e4202941@iee.org> From: "M. J. Everitt" Openpgp: id=BA266E0525CFAB101523351B4C30334F93C22371 Message-ID: <4da302dd-3e4f-42c0-b602-57e32272ce8a@iee.org> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:29:25 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 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 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FFow2hNDsvdDj1ecjKHdJbmW3eD6eVVIZ" X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfOhBg02HTK0fg+7JL5BmYEYu+7ehqE5mwOwdWQgE2iDo/7OoZn6VUB30PQPLourL5Od/RinrlBMr9QOdb01mIJfuyl/loxtomUyADPhbfkVRw1wARZ9x 9hF0jTfTfff1hLFOG197wtSYt8P2ZZ1hmPb+TI2kdQ+/rUUjG9PtSn68CUpoeTuX+rqqERmLhRjZ5A== X-Archives-Salt: d335bfdd-93f0-40ab-a14a-82db3f011c2b X-Archives-Hash: d79369ab79aeacc2c293a0b390e0596d This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --FFow2hNDsvdDj1ecjKHdJbmW3eD6eVVIZ Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="AQttbw1ue34e22bDAjvFE5Urabhq3kPD2"; protected-headers="v1" From: "M. J. Everitt" To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <4da302dd-3e4f-42c0-b602-57e32272ce8a@iee.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status References: <1523640697.5139.2.camel@gentoo.org> <88cd6d1c-8040-a6c2-8f1b-7d19e4202941@iee.org> In-Reply-To: --AQttbw1ue34e22bDAjvFE5Urabhq3kPD2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-GB On 13/04/18 23:25, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:07 PM, M. J. Everitt wr= ote: >> On 13/04/18 22:57, Rich Freeman wrote [excerpted]: >>> I find it ironic that you're suggesting that the folks who disagree >>> with you leave, considering that this whole debate was started by a >>> bunch of people who basically felt that nobody should really be kicke= d >>> out for anything. >>> >> The problem stems from the fact that there is (perceived to be) a >> problem with the wrong kinds of people *being* ejected or disciplined,= >> whereas some people who *should* be ejected or disciplined, are not. A= nd >> obviously so. There is no even-handed or transparent application of >> whatever "rules" are being applied, and this is seen to be unjust and >> unacceptable ... >> > Obviously I don't want to rehash this whole debate, but applying the > rules in a transparent way seems to be impossible without creating > legal risks. I've yet to hear anything to the contrary from the > Trustees/etc. So, it comes down to either trusting people to do this > well, or not doing it at all. I'm certainly supportive of calls to > try to improve transparency where this is possible, such as with > anonymized stats published by comrel. > > FWIW I've actually heard complaints at all levels within Gentoo about > double standards (coming from the top on down). It is probably fair > to say that bad deeds can be offset by good deeds to a significant > degree around here, even if those deeds are of a different nature. > So, somebody with a strong negative technical/non-technical/social > contribution could be tolerated if they have a correspondingly strong > positive social/non-technical/technical contribution. I've seen lots > of debate on both sides as to whether that is good or bad, but there > are certainly consequences for being too liberal with booting people > out, or keeping them around. > > I haven't heard many appeals during my time on the Council, but from > the ones I have seen there were usually very good reasons for those > who were asked to leave, and those same people were generally not very > honest with the community about the reasons they were given for being > booted. One form of transparency I have suggested is that when > disciplinary actions are given the person being disciplined should be > given an explanation for why the action is being taken, and that at > their option that explanation would be made public verbatim. I've > seen Debian do this and I thought it was a good way to balance > privacy/transparency/risk. The person being disciplined can at their > option keep the whole matter quiet, or they can have it publicized in > an official way. However, if they decide to publish their own account > of events while denying Gentoo permission to publish its side, then > those listening will probably be skeptical that they're getting the > full story. Since Gentoo would not make any public statements without > permission from the person impacted there would be little risk of > legal repercussions. > I think that if this is the process, people are more likely to buy into it, and accept that if that's the way it works, they can take it or leave it - and the risk is more theirs than that of the organisation. I think that in itself will garner more respect than the current situation at least .. --AQttbw1ue34e22bDAjvFE5Urabhq3kPD2-- --FFow2hNDsvdDj1ecjKHdJbmW3eD6eVVIZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJa0S9IAAoJEGPnxnn01DHdQjEQALxR9yJ7fPANGQj9UUQru76v LMeZEPfXkwxMkSOie9V7nv/d8hn5/XAq2jnRyv6LBNUn6iaOyP7ddVRlZkf6XZkm N/4cp0JnJZWhyqSCuHmDakE889WQ0zDdt08Z62/BfpdYF9zG5omzvI6DGizvpNY/ sDrJBLQ+G9V2/TWn2mIgKC9S1vF4YBUpLv4Cr8QTgUGOjS0cKiDExi4vLEA8KfF6 AAZn9OIEVXfA6pSHCm3Scruoic/CGtPbr/6JwFG2Q816tWyyTaBCSujJGAWgBHsU aJJjmZMtuCBW4xtqPm0EJYaLrdAcHmUv5JEP90V9n9NgLfQ+jhjgeEoSQr+dlWl4 e8A6nc7POq5rAKcWT7R+3HAymE09DIr8MxHibRDGIIo0s932tuAiE9UVQDpJM4KV xslI/Wb653ImOOU3q9ugNbrHwE2b0Tfz8Kj19agYmn1Y/dK6HOOQrBjN8ZBijNQV neFWmh7jflykZi3yh3buuViR6B4z6R/3FHA7R3S07JuP4FrpNu2FDFyHo/LEzTx9 yHnrmFIS29DW3+bCkxqJm1Dlun81xEz/9sNSLxDGkeH0RsD3D/hxlfASxmSlx9O4 o5ZiQGug0yf+KwCWunfy0RzdRab+mmiSM2STEvgxU5cTzjAhYZLHNSxQkZMoLuvs RiRngfvZJqiP7YZ/k0dM =HA9B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FFow2hNDsvdDj1ecjKHdJbmW3eD6eVVIZ--