[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2019-02-10

[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2019-02-10

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 778 bytes --]

Hi all,

In almost two weeks from now, there will be a council meeting again. Now
is the time to raise and prepare agenda items that you want us to
discuss and/or vote upon.

Please respond to this message on the gentoo-project mailing list with
agenda items.

The final agenda will be sent out on 2019-02-04, so please make sure
you post any agenda items before that, or we may not be able to
accommodate it into the next meeting.

The meeting itself will happen on 2019-02-10 19:00 UTC [1] in the
#gentoo-council FreeNode IRC channel.


1. https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20190210T19

-- 
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 --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2019-02-10

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:28 AM Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Please respond to this message on the gentoo-project mailing list with
> agenda items.
>

Proctors has received a few different requests for appeals of IRC
channel bans.  Right now this is not clearly in our scope so we've
declined to accept these appeals (anything actual SAID which is a CoC
violation on IRC would be in scope, though we try to avoid redundancy
with channel ops if they're already handling things).  Communications
with comrel suggest that it isn't clear that they consider it in their
scope either.

Can Council define an appeals process for appeals of moderation
decisions in general for any official Gentoo communications media?  I
think we have this for mailing lists, as Proctors is the only real
moderation there and Proctors does have an appeals process.  I think
IRC and Forums are the areas with gaps - to the extent that either has
an appeals process I can't find it documented anywhere (I welcome
leads in both areas to comment).

I'll start a separate thread on -project to discuss options/etc.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2019-02-10

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 508 bytes --]

On 1/31/19 8:11 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I'll start a separate thread on -project to discuss options/etc.

Thanks, we'll see when we get to next week how far that discussion has
gotten and whether it is ready to be put up for council or should be
left for next meeting.

FOSDEM this weekend will likely draw a lot of attention away from
discussions.

-- 
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 --]

[gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:11 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Can Council define an appeals process for appeals of moderation
> decisions in general for any official Gentoo communications media?  I
> think we have this for mailing lists, as Proctors is the only real
> moderation there and Proctors does have an appeals process.  I think
> IRC and Forums are the areas with gaps - to the extent that either has
> an appeals process I can't find it documented anywhere (I welcome
> leads in both areas to comment).
>

Proctors already has a defined appeals process.  Minor actions like
warnings or short bans are final, and longer bans are appealable to
Comrel.  IMO this is a reasonable balance.

To the extent that either IRC or Forums formally has a process for
short-term bans (<1wk)/etc I would suggest those also be
non-appealable beyond any internal process these teams have.

For appeals beyond this I suggest that Comrel also be the point of
appeal.  I think Proctors could also work, but it raises the question
of bureaucracy as in theory an IRC op might make a decision, then
Proctors takes an appeal, then Comrel takes an appeal, and then maybe
even Council takes an appeal.  That is a lot of appeals.

Very long-term it might make sense to try to better harmonize how we
do moderation on all these different media, but I think that is really
a separate issue, and doesn't need to be settled right away.  I think
that the absence of ANY appeals process in the interim is more of an
issue, as it does leave people who are subject to what might be one
person's decision no real access to due process.  Even if all the
moderators are doing a perfect job there should be a process.

I'd encourage IRC ops or Forums mods to chime in with their thoughts here...

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2149 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:27 AM Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:11 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > Can Council define an appeals process for appeals of moderation
> > decisions in general for any official Gentoo communications media?  I
> > think we have this for mailing lists, as Proctors is the only real
> > moderation there and Proctors does have an appeals process.  I think
> > IRC and Forums are the areas with gaps - to the extent that either has
> > an appeals process I can't find it documented anywhere (I welcome
> > leads in both areas to comment).
> >
>
> Proctors already has a defined appeals process.  Minor actions like
> warnings or short bans are final, and longer bans are appealable to
> Comrel.  IMO this is a reasonable balance.
>
> To the extent that either IRC or Forums formally has a process for
> short-term bans (<1wk)/etc I would suggest those also be
> non-appealable beyond any internal process these teams have.
>
> For appeals beyond this I suggest that Comrel also be the point of
> appeal.  I think Proctors could also work, but it raises the question
> of bureaucracy as in theory an IRC op might make a decision, then
> Proctors takes an appeal, then Comrel takes an appeal, and then maybe
> even Council takes an appeal.  That is a lot of appeals.
>

My two cents:

Would there be any merit for the imposition of additional sanctions for
abuse of process if an appeal is determined to be frivolous?

This might mitigate any concern about excessive bureaucracy.


> Very long-term it might make sense to try to better harmonize how we
> do moderation on all these different media, but I think that is really
> a separate issue, and doesn't need to be settled right away.  I think
> that the absence of ANY appeals process in the interim is more of an
> issue, as it does leave people who are subject to what might be one
> person's decision no real access to due process.  Even if all the
> moderators are doing a perfect job there should be a process.
>
> I'd encourage IRC ops or Forums mods to chime in with their thoughts
> here...
>
> --
> Rich
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2847 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[desultory]

On 01/31/19 18:21, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:27 AM Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:11 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can Council define an appeals process for appeals of moderation
>>> decisions in general for any official Gentoo communications media?  I
>>> think we have this for mailing lists, as Proctors is the only real
>>> moderation there and Proctors does have an appeals process.  I think
>>> IRC and Forums are the areas with gaps - to the extent that either has
>>> an appeals process I can't find it documented anywhere (I welcome
>>> leads in both areas to comment).
>>>
>>
>> Proctors already has a defined appeals process.  Minor actions like
>> warnings or short bans are final, and longer bans are appealable to
>> Comrel.  IMO this is a reasonable balance.
>>
>> To the extent that either IRC or Forums formally has a process for
>> short-term bans (<1wk)/etc I would suggest those also be
>> non-appealable beyond any internal process these teams have.
>>
>> For appeals beyond this I suggest that Comrel also be the point of
>> appeal.  I think Proctors could also work, but it raises the question
>> of bureaucracy as in theory an IRC op might make a decision, then
>> Proctors takes an appeal, then Comrel takes an appeal, and then maybe
>> even Council takes an appeal.  That is a lot of appeals.
>>
> 
> My two cents:
> 
> Would there be any merit for the imposition of additional sanctions for
> abuse of process if an appeal is determined to be frivolous?
> 
> This might mitigate any concern about excessive bureaucracy.
> 
Additional bureaucracy would mitigate concern about excessive
bureaucracy? ;)

Seriously though, the option to sanction users (which expressly must
include all developers) for frivolous appeals could at least potentially
reduce concerns regarding abuse of that appeals process. However,
mishandling of appeals is also a concern which bears addressing if one
is going quite that far down the bureaucratic rabbit hole.

Cases where an appeals process, with regard to electronic media, is
being abused tend to already have some underlying issue; if they don't
the sanctions process is almost certainly being abused.

> 
>> Very long-term it might make sense to try to better harmonize how we
>> do moderation on all these different media, but I think that is really
>> a separate issue, and doesn't need to be settled right away.  I think
>> that the absence of ANY appeals process in the interim is more of an
>> issue, as it does leave people who are subject to what might be one
>> person's decision no real access to due process.  Even if all the
>> moderators are doing a perfect job there should be a process.
>>
>> I'd encourage IRC ops or Forums mods to chime in with their thoughts
>> here...
>>
>> --
>> Rich
>>
>>
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3397 bytes --]

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:39 PM desultory <desultory@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 01/31/19 18:21, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:27 AM Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:11 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Can Council define an appeals process for appeals of moderation
> >>> decisions in general for any official Gentoo communications media?  I
> >>> think we have this for mailing lists, as Proctors is the only real
> >>> moderation there and Proctors does have an appeals process.  I think
> >>> IRC and Forums are the areas with gaps - to the extent that either has
> >>> an appeals process I can't find it documented anywhere (I welcome
> >>> leads in both areas to comment).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Proctors already has a defined appeals process.  Minor actions like
> >> warnings or short bans are final, and longer bans are appealable to
> >> Comrel.  IMO this is a reasonable balance.
> >>
> >> To the extent that either IRC or Forums formally has a process for
> >> short-term bans (<1wk)/etc I would suggest those also be
> >> non-appealable beyond any internal process these teams have.
> >>
> >> For appeals beyond this I suggest that Comrel also be the point of
> >> appeal.  I think Proctors could also work, but it raises the question
> >> of bureaucracy as in theory an IRC op might make a decision, then
> >> Proctors takes an appeal, then Comrel takes an appeal, and then maybe
> >> even Council takes an appeal.  That is a lot of appeals.
> >>
> >
> > My two cents:
> >
> > Would there be any merit for the imposition of additional sanctions for
> > abuse of process if an appeal is determined to be frivolous?
> >
> > This might mitigate any concern about excessive bureaucracy.
> >
> Additional bureaucracy would mitigate concern about excessive
> bureaucracy? ;)
>

In all seriousness, yes actually.

If "additional bureaucracy" comes in the form of defending the existing
bureaucracy by providing a disincentive to abuse it, I would see it as an
investment with a positive return.

It seems a self evident benefit to make someone think twice before spamming
a higher court as it were with baloney.


> Seriously though, the option to sanction users (which expressly must
> include all developers) for frivolous appeals could at least potentially
> reduce concerns regarding abuse of that appeals process. However,
> mishandling of appeals is also a concern which bears addressing if one
> is going quite that far down the bureaucratic rabbit hole.
>
> Cases where an appeals process, with regard to electronic media, is
> being abused tend to already have some underlying issue; if they don't
> the sanctions process is almost certainly being abused.
>
> >
> >> Very long-term it might make sense to try to better harmonize how we
> >> do moderation on all these different media, but I think that is really
> >> a separate issue, and doesn't need to be settled right away.  I think
> >> that the absence of ANY appeals process in the interim is more of an
> >> issue, as it does leave people who are subject to what might be one
> >> person's decision no real access to due process.  Even if all the
> >> moderators are doing a perfect job there should be a process.
> >>
> >> I'd encourage IRC ops or Forums mods to chime in with their thoughts
> >> here...
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rich
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4545 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[desultory]

On 01/31/19 14:27, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:11 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Can Council define an appeals process for appeals of moderation
>> decisions in general for any official Gentoo communications media?  I
>> think we have this for mailing lists, as Proctors is the only real
>> moderation there and Proctors does have an appeals process.  I think
>> IRC and Forums are the areas with gaps - to the extent that either has
>> an appeals process I can't find it documented anywhere (I welcome
>> leads in both areas to comment).
>>
> 
> Proctors already has a defined appeals process.  Minor actions like
> warnings or short bans are final, and longer bans are appealable to
> Comrel.  IMO this is a reasonable balance.
> 
> To the extent that either IRC or Forums formally has a process for
> short-term bans (<1wk)/etc I would suggest those also be
> non-appealable beyond any internal process these teams have.
> 
> For appeals beyond this I suggest that Comrel also be the point of
> appeal.  I think Proctors could also work, but it raises the question
> of bureaucracy as in theory an IRC op might make a decision, then
> Proctors takes an appeal, then Comrel takes an appeal, and then maybe
> even Council takes an appeal.  That is a lot of appeals.
> 
> Very long-term it might make sense to try to better harmonize how we
> do moderation on all these different media, but I think that is really
> a separate issue, and doesn't need to be settled right away.  I think
> that the absence of ANY appeals process in the interim is more of an
> issue, as it does leave people who are subject to what might be one
> person's decision no real access to due process.  Even if all the
> moderators are doing a perfect job there should be a process.
> 
> I'd encourage IRC ops or Forums mods to chime in with their thoughts here...
> 
Given prior interaction with ComRel, including their lead expressly
including the option to not reply at all in their poll of the members
regarding a matter before them (though, to be fair, points for admitting
it), as Forums project lead I am disinclined to take on any additional
"oversight" without good cause.

As originally constituted, proctors were to essentially be CoC
enforcement for media no other team was in place (mostly the mailing
lists), expanding their role to be yet another level of appeal in media
where other teams are in place seems to be muddling their purpose somewhat.

The forums appeal process is quite simple: contact us. Aside from spam,
there is not much use of direct sanctions by the forums team and when
there is simply demonstrating that one is acting in good faith is
typically enough to have such sanctions lifted. If a user truly cannot
reach some accord with moderators they can try other avenues but any
case where that would be plausible is not likely to end in the
moderators' decision being overturned by anyone who is not somehow
strongly partisan to the  party making the appeal and willfully ignoring
the actual circumstances of the sanction being levied.

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 1:34 AM desultory <desultory@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> As originally constituted, proctors were to essentially be CoC
> enforcement for media no other team was in place (mostly the mailing
> lists), expanding their role to be yet another level of appeal in media
> where other teams are in place seems to be muddling their purpose somewhat.

The chartering of the Proctors basically covers CoC enforcement on all
Gentoo communication.  The Forum moderators are even specifically
mentioned on the Proctors wiki as a means of contacting Proctors.  I
believe the long-term intent was to unify these various groups to some
extent, but this has not yet happened.  I think this should also
suggest that the appeals process should be the same as for proctors,
since these other moderators are basically acting as extensions of
proctors even if not formalized.

So far the proctors have mainly focused on areas like the
lists/bugzilla where productive Gentoo development occur which lack
any other moderation.  When other moderation teams are already
creating a place for productive Gentoo work we haven't gotten as
involved yet, such as:

https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1090810-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-50.html
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1080592-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-25.html
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1049438-start-0-postdays-0-postorder-asc-highlight-.html
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1091348.html

I'm not saying that we need some kind of mad rush to consolidate all
moderation activity (otherwise I'd be proposing this).  I'm just not
sure I'd be in a rush to say that there isn't opportunity for
improvement either (and the same is certainly true of the mailing
lists, as my earlier reply to mgorny illustrates)...

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[desultory]

On 02/02/19 08:41, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 1:34 AM desultory <desultory@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> As originally constituted, proctors were to essentially be CoC
>> enforcement for media no other team was in place (mostly the mailing
>> lists), expanding their role to be yet another level of appeal in media
>> where other teams are in place seems to be muddling their purpose somewhat.
> 
> The chartering of the Proctors basically covers CoC enforcement on all
> Gentoo communication.  The Forum moderators are even specifically
> mentioned on the Proctors wiki as a means of contacting Proctors.  I
Might I suggest, with all due respect, that you read the wiki page to
which you refer [proctors] just a bit more carefully?
"You can report forum guideline violations directly on the forums to the
forum moderators."
Is the only direct reference to the forums, the forum moderation team,
or the forum guidelines; and it in no way whatsoever implies that the
forum moderators are in any way part of the proctors project or a means
of contacting proctors any more than anyone else would be. Even if it
*did* imply that, forums and proctors are two separate top level
projects, neither is part and parcel of the other nor are they meant to
be as implied by the other (relevant) bullet points in that same list.

To wit:
"For #gentoo, please talk to the people in #gentoo-ops." Ergo #gentoo
ops are not de facto part of proctors and are a separate entity which is
responsible for #gentoo.

"If it is in another medium like the mailing lists, you have the feeling
the issue is not only limited to one of the media already moderated
primarily by another group of moderators, or not taken seriously enough
by them, please contact us using the alias proctors@gentoo.org." Which
directly states that proctors are to be contacted only if the issue in
question is not restricted to areas already covered by other groups
which enforce the CoC. Or, more concerningly (as others have mentioned
concerns about creeping bureaucracy), if it was "not taken seriously
enough", which seems curiously counter to the mission statement of
de-escalation. Given that it implies that when those who actually
maintain specific media, be it forums, irc channels, or any of the
social platforms PR uses, find some complaint to not merit further
action than they have already taken, proctors would *itself* escalate
the response despite it already having been handled, even if such
handling is effectively just telling the complainant that their concerns
are overblown. Not to mention grammatical/structural considerations, it
would likely be better conveyed by breaking it into a sub list as this
bullet point is the only one which actually addresses when to contact
proctors and it covers multiple points.

"The Proctors are usually present in the irc channel #gentoo-proctors
(check the list of operators there), but since they are probably not
reading along all the time, it is usually better to use email or ping on
IRC so your issue does not get lost." Being the not relevant bullet
point I had alluded to, is not actually relevant to the heading under
which the list is present, as it describes how to contact proctors, not
when; so that could use some editorial attention as well.

> believe the long-term intent was to unify these various groups to some
> extent, but this has not yet happened.  I think this should also
Your intent it may be, but this is the first I have seen any indication
of that intent and just dumping it in the middle of a thread on a
mailing list instead of actually discussing the prospect with those
involved to gauge interest and/or feasibility beforehand seems a rather
poor start. Also, again as forums project lead, at this point I am
strongly disinclined to undertake such unification.

> suggest that the appeals process should be the same as for proctors,
> since these other moderators are basically acting as extensions of
> proctors even if not formalized.
As already noted, forum moderators (and #gentoo ops, at the least) are
*expressly* not proctors subordinate projects, according to proctors,
let alone themselves.

> 
> So far the proctors have mainly focused on areas like the
> lists/bugzilla where productive Gentoo development occur which lack
> any other moderation.  When other moderation teams are already
> creating a place for productive Gentoo work we haven't gotten as
> involved yet, such as:
> 
> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1090810-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-50.html
> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1080592-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-25.html
> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1049438-start-0-postdays-0-postorder-asc-highlight-.html
> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1091348.html
> 
Four topics in an expressly off-topic forum, none of which were actually
in the state that was claimed by the complainant, makes for a rather
poor example of where proctors have not "gotten as involved yet". Given
that there was nothing to get involved in.

> I'm not saying that we need some kind of mad rush to consolidate all
> moderation activity (otherwise I'd be proposing this).  I'm just not
> sure I'd be in a rush to say that there isn't opportunity for
> improvement either (and the same is certainly true of the mailing
> lists, as my earlier reply to mgorny illustrates)...
> 
Conversely, I am more inclined to address the topic directly: thusfar
every attempt to "improve" Gentoo wide CoC conformance has, to put it
generously, issues. This rather strongly implies that media specific
teams are a more viable solution to the problem at hand.

The original proctors project was disbanded because one of the council
members who had campaigned for the project in the first place found
himself, rightly, on the receiving end of CoC enforcement as laid out
and agreed upon. Granted, the lists did get less bad after that
particular debacle, but that does not make it less of a mess. Though, to
be fair, that was a mess that was in no way the fault of those trying to
actually implement the project, other efforts have not fairly so well.

ComRel, as I have previously mentioned, engages in some extremely
questionable practices, though  (again) to their credit at least they
admit it.

As for the current proctors project, in addition to my comments above,
CoC abuses on the lists are quite common and given the distribution of
offenses with respect to the set of posters, CoC enforcement does not
appear to be effectively implemented even in that limited scope; despite
evident efforts to engage in scope creep. This is a distinctly
concerning trend, as it rather strongly indicates that the current
proctors project either cannot or will not actually undertake its
mandate, while it seeks to expand its direct sphere of responsibility;
which, by rather direct implication would mean that the proctors would
end up as the sole CoC "enforcement" body (dissolving #gentoo ops, forum
moderation and other groups) while not enforcing the CoC  (nor site or
channel specific rules as the proctors only expressly cover CoC violations.

[proctors] https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project:Proctors

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 527 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 05:22:09 CET schrieb desultory:
>
> ComRel, as I have previously mentioned, engages in some extremely
> questionable practices, though  (again) to their credit at least they
> admit it.

And parts of forums should rather go away sooner than later, given how even 
moderators take part in highly questionable threads. That mess also reflects 
on Gentoo as a whole.

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Michał Górny]

Dnia February 3, 2019 11:44:19 AM UTC, "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 05:22:09 CET schrieb desultory:
>>
>> ComRel, as I have previously mentioned, engages in some extremely
>> questionable practices, though  (again) to their credit at least they
>> admit it.
>
>And parts of forums should rather go away sooner than later, given how
>even 
>moderators take part in highly questionable threads. That mess also
>reflects 
>on Gentoo as a whole.

Given how separatist Forums tend to be, and how heavy they are on infra hardware (not to mention poor security record), maybe the best way forward would be to stop running official forums, and let forums team maintain their private universe of their own pockets.


--
Best regards, 
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[desultory]

On 02/03/19 07:23, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia February 3, 2019 11:44:19 AM UTC, "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>> Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 05:22:09 CET schrieb desultory:
>>>
>>> ComRel, as I have previously mentioned, engages in some extremely
>>> questionable practices, though  (again) to their credit at least they
>>> admit it.
>>
>> And parts of forums should rather go away sooner than later, given how
>> even 
>> moderators take part in highly questionable threads. That mess also
>> reflects 
>> on Gentoo as a whole.
> 
> Given how separatist Forums tend to be, and how heavy they are on infra hardware (not to mention poor security record), maybe the best way forward would be to stop running official forums, and let forums team maintain their private universe of their own pockets.
> 
So suggesting that others should fulfill their roles before attempting
to subsume other's roles is now "separatist" instead of "sensible"? And
effectively threatening entire projects and *users* seeking support is
acceptable for members of Infra? Also, this "poor security record" you
nebulously allude to is curiously free of incidents.

I once again ask you to abide by the CoC on the lists, as that post
appears to treat the "Unacceptable behavior" list as a a todo list while
effectively ignoring its opposite number. [CoC]

> 
> --
> Best regards, 
> Michał Górny
> 
> 

[CoC] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1680 bytes --]

On Sun, 2019-02-03 at 23:56 -0500, desultory wrote:
> On 02/03/19 07:23, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia February 3, 2019 11:44:19 AM UTC, "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> > > Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 05:22:09 CET schrieb desultory:
> > > > 
> > > > ComRel, as I have previously mentioned, engages in some extremely
> > > > questionable practices, though  (again) to their credit at least they
> > > > admit it.
> > > 
> > > And parts of forums should rather go away sooner than later, given how
> > > even 
> > > moderators take part in highly questionable threads. That mess also
> > > reflects 
> > > on Gentoo as a whole.
> > 
> > Given how separatist Forums tend to be, and how heavy they are on infra hardware (not to mention poor security record), maybe the best way forward would be to stop running official forums, and let forums team maintain their private universe of their own pockets.
> > 
> 
> So suggesting that others should fulfill their roles before attempting
> to subsume other's roles is now "separatist" instead of "sensible"?

No.  I believe that having a number of developers who practically never
participate in Gentoo in other topics than directly related to Forums
and who show up only whenever somebody else 'peeks their nose in' to
make sure nothing ever changes is separatist.

And pointing CoC out at everybody who dares state disagreeing beliefs
with you isn't helping any fruitful discussion.  Pretty much sounds like
attempting to silence dissuading opinions, again to make sure nothing
ever changes and Forums are beyond regular Gentoo 'politics'.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[desultory]

On 02/04/19 00:39, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-02-03 at 23:56 -0500, desultory wrote:
>> On 02/03/19 07:23, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Dnia February 3, 2019 11:44:19 AM UTC, "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>>>> Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 05:22:09 CET schrieb desultory:
>>>>>
>>>>> ComRel, as I have previously mentioned, engages in some extremely
>>>>> questionable practices, though  (again) to their credit at least they
>>>>> admit it.
>>>>
>>>> And parts of forums should rather go away sooner than later, given how
>>>> even 
>>>> moderators take part in highly questionable threads. That mess also
>>>> reflects 
>>>> on Gentoo as a whole.
>>>
>>> Given how separatist Forums tend to be, and how heavy they are on infra hardware (not to mention poor security record), maybe the best way forward would be to stop running official forums, and let forums team maintain their private universe of their own pockets.
>>>
>>
>> So suggesting that others should fulfill their roles before attempting
>> to subsume other's roles is now "separatist" instead of "sensible"?
> 
> No.  I believe that having a number of developers who practically never
> participate in Gentoo in other topics than directly related to Forums
> and who show up only whenever somebody else 'peeks their nose in' to
> make sure nothing ever changes is separatist.
> 
The correct term for your straw team would be isolationist
[def:isolationist] not separatist [def:separatist]. Regardless, your
straw team is indeed just that: a fictional dummy for you to besmirch
which has no relation to reality. Even though several members of the
forums project are members of no other project others are, and I would
hardly count being a project lead as uninvolved in their other project.
Even aside from that forums project members regularly assist ebuild
developers, recruited and not, in #gentoo-dev-help. And, in case you
missed it, also provide one of the two forms of user support actually
provided by Gentoo, which happens to involve some amount of interaction
with the user community. So the forums team is hardly a group of hermits
in a hollow somewhere "who show up only whenever somebody else 'peeks
their nose in'".

As for the " to make sure nothing ever changes" part of your
characterization, for one change for its own sake is pointless, for
another positive changes would be quite welcomed. The test server which
we had been promised some time ago would be a lovely positive change,
and it needn't even be on additional hardware.

Still, thank you for making it clear that you are trolling because of
another of your failed proposals [reporting] which I had pointed out
was, in the form you proposed, impractical and I had even suggested how
it could be amended to be practical while you even then engaged in
trolling. It seems that things would work much more smoothly around you
if you were to disabuse yourself of the notion that it is incumbent upon
 others, whether myself or anyone else, to fix, or worse implement
without fixing, anything that you propose.

Also, your prior characterization of the forums and "how heavy they are
on infra hardware" is distinctly curious in itself, as the hosting
provider where the forums are hosted specifically donated usage of the
hardware, hosting and upgrades specifically for the forums, and indeed
had as their one condition for the services of the four machines
initially donated was to have mention of their hosting service in the
page footer on the forums. Of the four systems originally *dedicated* to
the forums, three provide *any* forums services, while the other
provides front end services for other projects. This description leaving
out upgrades and such. So much for that characterization as well.

> And pointing CoC out at everybody who dares state disagreeing beliefs
> with you isn't helping any fruitful discussion.  Pretty much sounds like
> attempting to silence dissuading opinions, again to make sure nothing
> ever changes and Forums are beyond regular Gentoo 'politics'.
> 
If so, more's the pity.

You might have noticed that I pointed to the CoC when individuals made
comments which were materially counter to it, such as when a sitting
member of the council complained of how part of the forums reflects on
gentoo as a whole, then proceeded to make comments which were themselves
flaming and trolling, which itself does indeed reflect badly on Gentoo.
That being aside from the "nuked from orbit" comment which if taken as
being explicitly referential to the most common source [aliens] of that
meme would be openly libelous of everyone who has so much as posted
there, though it has become a common vernacular phrase which is largely
just a call for removal and is hardly even an emphatic form anymore.
Even his comment about the forums feeling like the evil mirror universe
would have been passable if he cited a reason, without that it is base
trolling and should be recognized for what it is.

If you want to argue a point, please do. If you can actually demonstrate
that I am wrong, by all means *convince* me. Just making sloppy,
unsupported arguments is not helping anyone.

[def:isolationist] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/isolationist
[def:separatist] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/separatist
[reporting]
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/5dd32dca6e48ea5f1db454d68f07f9ec
[aliens] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 809 bytes --]

On 2/3/19 12:44 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 05:22:09 CET schrieb desultory:
>>
>> ComRel, as I have previously mentioned, engages in some extremely
>> questionable practices, though  (again) to their credit at least they
>> admit it.
> 
> And parts of forums should rather go away sooner than later, given how even 
> moderators take part in highly questionable threads. That mess also reflects 
> on Gentoo as a whole.
> 

To be more concrete here if we want to put it on the agenda, we're
talking about OTW only, or are there other categories etc that are
non-gentoo-related on official communication channels?

-- 
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 --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1207 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 14:41:19 CET schrieb Kristian Fiskerstrand:
> On 2/3/19 12:44 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 05:22:09 CET schrieb desultory:
> >> ComRel, as I have previously mentioned, engages in some extremely
> >> questionable practices, though  (again) to their credit at least they
> >> admit it.
> > 
> > And parts of forums should rather go away sooner than later, given how
> > even
> > moderators take part in highly questionable threads. That mess also
> > reflects on Gentoo as a whole.
> 
> To be more concrete here if we want to put it on the agenda, we're
> talking about OTW only, or are there other categories etc that are
> non-gentoo-related on official communication channels?

My main point is that OTW needs to be nuked from orbit.

That said, I'm not sure how much the forums / forum mods are still integrated 
with the developer community in general. Maybe we devs just need to become 
more active on the forums. Sometimes it feels like a parallel universe (where 
Spock has a beard) though.

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1580 bytes --]

On 2/3/19 2:53 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 14:41:19 CET schrieb Kristian Fiskerstrand:
>> On 2/3/19 12:44 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>> Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 05:22:09 CET schrieb desultory:
>>>> ComRel, as I have previously mentioned, engages in some extremely
>>>> questionable practices, though  (again) to their credit at least they
>>>> admit it.
>>>
>>> And parts of forums should rather go away sooner than later, given how
>>> even
>>> moderators take part in highly questionable threads. That mess also
>>> reflects on Gentoo as a whole.
>>
>> To be more concrete here if we want to put it on the agenda, we're
>> talking about OTW only, or are there other categories etc that are
>> non-gentoo-related on official communication channels?
> 
> My main point is that OTW needs to be nuked from orbit.

That seems to be a good place to start in any case

> 
> That said, I'm not sure how much the forums / forum mods are still integrated 
> with the developer community in general. Maybe we devs just need to become 
> more active on the forums. Sometimes it feels like a parallel universe (where 
> Spock has a beard) though.

I don't see how that'd work, the more natural conclusion if we determine
this is a concern is shutting down the forum altogether, not arbitrarily
altering the workflow. I'm not ready for that at this point myself, though.


-- 
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 --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1302 bytes --]

On 2/3/19 3:26 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 2/3/19 2:53 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 14:41:19 CET schrieb Kristian Fiskerstrand:
>>> On 2/3/19 12:44 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>>> Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 05:22:09 CET schrieb desultory:
>>>>> ComRel, as I have previously mentioned, engages in some extremely
>>>>> questionable practices, though  (again) to their credit at least they
>>>>> admit it.
>>>>
>>>> And parts of forums should rather go away sooner than later, given how
>>>> even
>>>> moderators take part in highly questionable threads. That mess also
>>>> reflects on Gentoo as a whole.
>>>
>>> To be more concrete here if we want to put it on the agenda, we're
>>> talking about OTW only, or are there other categories etc that are
>>> non-gentoo-related on official communication channels?
>>
>> My main point is that OTW needs to be nuked from orbit.
> 
> That seems to be a good place to start in any case
> 

What are the forum-mods thoughts (as a team) on the matter of non-gentoo
related, and seemingly inappropriate, discussion happening in the forums?



-- 
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 --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Kristian Fiskerstrand schrieb:

>>>>> And parts of forums should rather go away sooner than later, given how
>>>>> even
>>>>> moderators take part in highly questionable threads. That mess also
>>>>> reflects on Gentoo as a whole.
>>>>
>>>> To be more concrete here if we want to put it on the agenda, we're
>>>> talking about OTW only, or are there other categories etc that are
>>>> non-gentoo-related on official communication channels?
>>>
>>> My main point is that OTW needs to be nuked from orbit.
>>
>> That seems to be a good place to start in any case
>>
> 
> What are the forum-mods thoughts (as a team) on the matter of non-gentoo
> related, and seemingly inappropriate, discussion happening in the forums?

Those of you who are long enough with Gentoo might remember the drama around 
forum members' political user avatars and other forum members taking offense 
at those and demanding their censorship, which (iirc) ultimately lead to 
retirement of one or more Gentoo developers.

I suggest keeping this in mind before restarting the discussion of what is 
allowed on the forums and what not.

On the topic of "reflects on Gentoo as a whole", is there actual evidence of 
someone making negative remarks about Gentoo as a whole, pointing to an OTW 
threat for the argument?

A compromise / an alternative to removing OTW (if deemed a bad thing) would 
be to limit its public reach by allowing only registered forum users to 
access it.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[desultory]

On 02/03/19 20:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Kristian Fiskerstrand schrieb:
> 
>>>>>> And parts of forums should rather go away sooner than later, given
>>>>>> how
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> moderators take part in highly questionable threads. That mess also
>>>>>> reflects on Gentoo as a whole.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be more concrete here if we want to put it on the agenda, we're
>>>>> talking about OTW only, or are there other categories etc that are
>>>>> non-gentoo-related on official communication channels?
>>>>
>>>> My main point is that OTW needs to be nuked from orbit.
>>>
>>> That seems to be a good place to start in any case
>>>
>>
>> What are the forum-mods thoughts (as a team) on the matter of non-gentoo
>> related, and seemingly inappropriate, discussion happening in the forums?
> 
> Those of you who are long enough with Gentoo might remember the drama
> around forum members' political user avatars and other forum members
> taking offense at those and demanding their censorship, which (iirc)
> ultimately lead to retirement of one or more Gentoo developers.
> 
> I suggest keeping this in mind before restarting the discussion of what
> is allowed on the forums and what not.
> 
> On the topic of "reflects on Gentoo as a whole", is there actual
> evidence of someone making negative remarks about Gentoo as a whole,
> pointing to an OTW threat for the argument?
> 
So far as I am aware, none worth noting, present or otherwise. (Those
not otherwise worth noting being disgruntled, former, users who were in
reality mostly just complaining that people had the temerity to treat
rules as though they applied to them; I can think of no reason to
consider their remarks to be useful or individually noteworthy.)

> A compromise / an alternative to removing OTW (if deemed a bad thing)
> would be to limit its public reach by allowing only registered forum
> users to access it.
> 
Barring objections from other moderators, I have no objections to that
compromise.

> 
> Best regards,
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Andreas K. Huettel]

> 
> Those of you who are long enough with Gentoo might remember the drama around
> forum members' political user avatars and other forum members taking
> offense at those and demanding their censorship, which (iirc) ultimately
> lead to retirement of one or more Gentoo developers.
> 
> I suggest keeping this in mind before restarting the discussion of what is
> allowed on the forums and what not.

That was really long ago, and many things in and around the internet have 
changed in the meantime.

(What happened on slashdot back then would probably today only be possible at 
4chan, for example.)

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Andreas K. Huettel schrieb:
>> I suggest keeping this in mind before restarting the discussion of what is
>> allowed on the forums and what not.
> That was really long ago, and many things in and around the internet have
> changed in the meantime.

Some things have changed, and some things have not changed. Among the 
things that have not changed is that fueling the drama is not helpful, 
instead mediation is.

So if there is no consensus reached, the group in Gentoo that is 
responsible for conflict resolution (ComRel) could maybe step up and 
start to mediate between those who want to keep OTW, and those who want 
OTW to go away.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 529 bytes --]

On 2/5/19 2:05 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> So if there is no consensus reached, the group in Gentoo that is
> responsible for conflict resolution (ComRel) could maybe step up and
> start to mediate between those who want to keep OTW, and those who want
> OTW to go away.

No, this isn't conflict resolution, but a policy decision which belongs
to council.

-- 
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 --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Kristian Fiskerstrand schrieb:
> On 2/5/19 2:05 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> So if there is no consensus reached, the group in Gentoo that is
>> responsible for conflict resolution (ComRel) could maybe step up and
>> start to mediate between those who want to keep OTW, and those who want
>> OTW to go away.
> No, this isn't conflict resolution, but a policy decision which belongs
> to council.

It is of course Council's prerogative to make a decision on such 
matters, however it is very obvious that this is *also* a conflict 
between (groups inside) the Gentoo community. If Council deems it 
necessary and the matter urgent enough to act before other ways of 
addressing the problems have been explored, that is of course also up to 
Council, although not something that I would personally welcome at this 
time.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:38 PM Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
<chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> A compromise / an alternative to removing OTW (if deemed a bad thing) would
> be to limit its public reach by allowing only registered forum users to
> access it.
>

If it isn't a bad thing, then why would we want to hide it?  If it is
a bad thing, why would we want to stop merely at hiding our shame?

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[desultory]

On 02/04/19 08:45, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:38 PM Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> <chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> A compromise / an alternative to removing OTW (if deemed a bad thing) would
>> be to limit its public reach by allowing only registered forum users to
>> access it.
>>
> 
> If it isn't a bad thing, then why would we want to hide it?  If it is
> a bad thing, why would we want to stop merely at hiding our shame?
> 
As noted, I do not believe Off the Wall to be a "shame", but we have
considered limiting it to registered users for purely practical reasons,
primarily as a means of limiting the appeal of the forums to spammers.
Making it accessible only to those who have logged in does not remove
its value as a social area while it would keep crawlers, for spam bots
and search engines alike, out.

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Rich Freeman schrieb:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:38 PM Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> <chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> A compromise / an alternative to removing OTW (if deemed a bad thing) would
>> be to limit its public reach by allowing only registered forum users to
>> access it.
>>
> If it isn't a bad thing, then why would we want to hide it?  If it is
> a bad thing, why would we want to stop merely at hiding our shame?

Some things can be both good and bad at the same time. The argument that 
I have read so far is that "OTW is a mess that reflects on Gentoo as a 
whole". If/when that is substantiated would give rise to the next 
question, how to limit the badness? Are there ways that are almost as 
effective as removing OTW entirely and would cause less drama?


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[desultory]

On 02/03/19 10:51, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 2/3/19 3:26 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> On 2/3/19 2:53 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>> Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 14:41:19 CET schrieb Kristian Fiskerstrand:
>>>> On 2/3/19 12:44 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>>>> Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 05:22:09 CET schrieb desultory:
>>>>>> ComRel, as I have previously mentioned, engages in some extremely
>>>>>> questionable practices, though  (again) to their credit at least they
>>>>>> admit it.
>>>>>
>>>>> And parts of forums should rather go away sooner than later, given how
>>>>> even
>>>>> moderators take part in highly questionable threads. That mess also
>>>>> reflects on Gentoo as a whole.
>>>>
>>>> To be more concrete here if we want to put it on the agenda, we're
>>>> talking about OTW only, or are there other categories etc that are
>>>> non-gentoo-related on official communication channels?
>>>
>>> My main point is that OTW needs to be nuked from orbit.
>>
>> That seems to be a good place to start in any case
>>
> 
> What are the forum-mods thoughts (as a team) on the matter of non-gentoo
> related, and seemingly inappropriate, discussion happening in the forums?
> 

I, personally, consider the cited examples to be essentially harmless
and the complaints about them to be distinctly overwrought.

> 
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[desultory]

On 02/03/19 08:53, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 14:41:19 CET schrieb Kristian Fiskerstrand:
>> On 2/3/19 12:44 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>> Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019, 05:22:09 CET schrieb desultory:
>>>> ComRel, as I have previously mentioned, engages in some extremely
>>>> questionable practices, though  (again) to their credit at least they
>>>> admit it.
>>>
>>> And parts of forums should rather go away sooner than later, given how
>>> even
>>> moderators take part in highly questionable threads. That mess also
>>> reflects on Gentoo as a whole.
>>
>> To be more concrete here if we want to put it on the agenda, we're
>> talking about OTW only, or are there other categories etc that are
>> non-gentoo-related on official communication channels?
> 
> My main point is that OTW needs to be nuked from orbit.
> 
Your "main point" appears to ignore how developers regularly engage in
discussion at least as "bad" as what has been cited in other official
channels without anyone, at least seriously, calling for e.g #gentoo-dev
to be "nuked from orbit". Your "main point" also ignores that several
users who regularly provide support, you know the thing the forums are
primarily for, spend as much time on the forums as they do in part due
to having something like Off the Wall functioning as a sort of social hall.

> That said, I'm not sure how much the forums / forum mods are still integrated 
> with the developer community in general. Maybe we devs just need to become 
> more active on the forums. Sometimes it feels like a parallel universe (where 
> Spock has a beard) though.
> 
Developers do, and have, taken part in the forums. Yes there have been
negative interactions with developers, but it is mostly minor and
handled when found or reported and by far the worst cases have involved
the developers behaving far and away worse than the users they were in
conflict with.

So if you are looking to become more active on the forums you are
entirely welcome to it, but bear in mind that the rules apply to
developers every bit as much as they do to users, if you consider that
to be a "disconnect" then I would suggest considering how that "reflects
on Gentoo as a whole".

As for describing the forums as something that "feels like" the
stereotypical evil mirror universe, might I suggest some reading
material for you? [CoC]

[CoC] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 11:22 PM desultory <desultory@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On 02/02/19 08:41, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> > So far the proctors have mainly focused on areas like the
> > lists/bugzilla where productive Gentoo development occur which lack
> > any other moderation.  When other moderation teams are already
> > creating a place for productive Gentoo work we haven't gotten as
> > involved yet, such as:
> >
> > https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1090810-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-50.html
> > https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1080592-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-25.html
> > https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1049438-start-0-postdays-0-postorder-asc-highlight-.html
> > https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1091348.html
> >
> Four topics in an expressly off-topic forum, none of which were actually
> in the state that was claimed by the complainant, makes for a rather
> poor example of where proctors have not "gotten as involved yet". Given
> that there was nothing to get involved in.

They simply illustrate that the code of conduct not really being applied.

The Code of Conduct simply states that it applies to Gentoo's "public
communication mediums."  It makes no exceptions for forums that claim
to be off-topic.

If we think that part of Gentoo's mission ought to be competing with
4chan or whatever maybe it needs to be amended...

>
> > I'm not saying that we need some kind of mad rush to consolidate all
> > moderation activity (otherwise I'd be proposing this).
>
> CoC enforcement does not
> appear to be effectively implemented even in that limited scope; despite
> evident efforts to engage in scope creep. This is a distinctly
> concerning trend, as it rather strongly indicates that the current
> proctors project either cannot or will not actually undertake its
> mandate, while it seeks to expand its direct sphere of responsibility;

Citation?

I am speaking only for myself, not for proctors, and insofar as I'm
stating my own opinion so far I've said:

1.  We shouldn't move to consolidate Forum/IRC moderators under Proctors.

2.  Proctors shouldn't receive appeals from these teams, but that like
Proctors appeals ought to go to Comrel.

How this suggests that Proctors is trying to increase its scope is
unclear to me.  I personally agree that Proctors is still getting
re-established and should continue to focus more on areas lacking
moderation until processes/etc are better documented and are working
well in practice.

That said, the lists haven't been that terrible of late, certainly not
compared to years past.  Proctors has generally been trying to avoid
issuing warnings for every sentence that is a bit snarky.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[desultory]

On 02/03/19 06:53, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 11:22 PM desultory <desultory@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 02/02/19 08:41, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>> So far the proctors have mainly focused on areas like the
>>> lists/bugzilla where productive Gentoo development occur which lack
>>> any other moderation.  When other moderation teams are already
>>> creating a place for productive Gentoo work we haven't gotten as
>>> involved yet, such as:
>>>
>>> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1090810-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-50.html
>>> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1080592-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-25.html
>>> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1049438-start-0-postdays-0-postorder-asc-highlight-.html
>>> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1091348.html
>>>
>> Four topics in an expressly off-topic forum, none of which were actually
>> in the state that was claimed by the complainant, makes for a rather
>> poor example of where proctors have not "gotten as involved yet". Given
>> that there was nothing to get involved in.
> 
> They simply illustrate that the code of conduct not really being applied.
> 
No, at "worst" they illustrate that it is not being overly strictly
enforced where it is specifically noted that is less strictly enforced.

> The Code of Conduct simply states that it applies to Gentoo's "public
> communication mediums."  It makes no exceptions for forums that claim
> to be off-topic.
> 
Nor had I claimed that it did, I was pointing out that the cited topics
were not apropos Gentoo while in a section that is expressly for, or at
least allowing for, such discussions. They would indeed be inappropriate
otherwise.

> If we think that part of Gentoo's mission ought to be competing with
> 4chan or whatever maybe it needs to be amended...
> 
Given the claimed degree of effect that 4chan has had on global politics
of late, there have been worse ideas suggested. ;) Though, in all
seriousness continuing to provide a longstanding social area on the one
platform, outside of the mailing lists, that Gentoo itself actually
provides hardly seems to qualify as competing with 4chan in any regard,
be it scale, tone, reach, or any other.

>>
>>> I'm not saying that we need some kind of mad rush to consolidate all
>>> moderation activity (otherwise I'd be proposing this).
>>
>> CoC enforcement does not
>> appear to be effectively implemented even in that limited scope; despite
>> evident efforts to engage in scope creep. This is a distinctly
>> concerning trend, as it rather strongly indicates that the current
>> proctors project either cannot or will not actually undertake its
>> mandate, while it seeks to expand its direct sphere of responsibility;
> 
> Citation?
> 
If you are seriously asking for it, I could compile some more obvious
instances, though it would take some time as it would be a necessarily
manual process.

> I am speaking only for myself, not for proctors, and insofar as I'm
> stating my own opinion so far I've said:
> 
> 1.  We shouldn't move to consolidate Forum/IRC moderators under Proctors.
> 
I completely agree.

> 2.  Proctors shouldn't receive appeals from these teams, but that like
> Proctors appeals ought to go to Comrel.
> 
Again, I completely agree. Obviously, just to be explicit about it, with
the group issuing the initial sanction being the first point of appeal.

> How this suggests that Proctors is trying to increase its scope is
> unclear to me.  I personally agree that Proctors is still getting
> re-established and should continue to focus more on areas lacking
> moderation until processes/etc are better documented and are working
> well in practice.
> 
Comments about forum moderators and #gentoo ops being effectively
proctors gave that distinct impression, my point is essentially that
while the roles might serve largely the same purpose the have differing
scope and there is historical justification for keeping it that way.

> That said, the lists haven't been that terrible of late, certainly not
> compared to years past.  Proctors has generally been trying to avoid
> issuing warnings for every sentence that is a bit snarky.
> 
Both of those points are distinctly obvious, especially the former,
mercifully so.