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 08F54139085 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:05:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1393D2241BA; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:05:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [217.72.192.75]) (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 989112241B7 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:05:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.6.77] ([46.208.76.211]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue101 [212.227.15.179]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LbItu-1crpdD452w-00kwzN for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:05:46 +0100 Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20170115195209.70d3a748.mgorny@gentoo.org> From: "M. J. Everitt" Message-ID: <587C0047.9000002@iee.org> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:05:43 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.5.0 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-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TOf2S4gBR9jUWwrXlPKH8AbalSi2PX3GC" X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:pk1hz2VXt7NJtjVoEJPWHvGcr0o2SY8hTK4rJmXimdFNQI2txDs 3oV/XPBu7F+Pq6H/IN0mpNoi/mUe4zL042QTRKNCnIp/6fLq9XjwLwtdk4qn+0m+7b4Y5SL US7YyiSjw7mWU8+lYZrLr/BTkwu0CoN4+zlk4RIDDUiqJ/DnC3/vuz2lv4/tvgGAaP6/SfX xzcuXwjOHRiwwjxJrMGvw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:r3xFcVN1PzE=:KYS7O0Rp+oNHRaTTfVaR6Z GVUWM6TF4IFSqa6fWPzBGODSyOW0LISKjO/KuqTvNsbY/p7jVShfWhwgr6+pppWabYQwo1sQm fpvicU0QdL3q+RpEA2GqVHLhyKxiFGS+nzb8YA0gKfONACso68n+hR4ymRjVFLKeMQRphUi7r 9p5+2T+Ph27FZzENavJKmKlQXpbosA/Z4Ev8onJ8TsO2mslJK+nbM5gRMiFg/56SHjpeUjLZm Y2H5jsrJmcoZIOByYv5nZAXUK8jRbBBU1dlcfMqbNhUCLrz9cp601PXkVfuPGBahVJ0iAp1UZ 6RcjB/FjfZIcHEUnpg5LpN3bmR0qcc4b72H999gm7DA30oGxP4Vh2eT1R0vTLEF28g7aTIKvI lS3pr6wLGXjg/hySLFCW2jkrcmio/XvNQmB16MihkqqbaL4FZ100nbWlESZ3SxZboI2GStcbw kqqaWQPIyAcQxXm4Wnu8z/PGKkDD9s0n4s5yMRdeUqZJCPuHab3ir95vUcrubDie8aWDPgIJx /j68mkRPeBpOaLBtu2LIpXwlV9V0dko5LXLT4tRZoS04Aqxwl8CA7k3OBi5hfG7Na3FDdSEGB Cw0UG9uo5dxO2E2Y7scwzrSctLY2voeeGH3E/RnfZwf90Y59xy6YwqGAZIa/nNu91davUgjSa +JQogThCTFONICDAgCFa6Ip0onDZP2bHc62E5RqwRapzOCdS19ixisXBVFL3FCZmFub8= X-Archives-Salt: 0cc9c9c6-8d4e-4135-b7ff-50c9af931e14 X-Archives-Hash: 3be4b045bf056952e73ef99d7ab17523 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --TOf2S4gBR9jUWwrXlPKH8AbalSi2PX3GC Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="r1C8Bom7ewiQGS1QUwu6UnK3pAAIx27wJ"; protected-headers="v1" From: "M. J. Everitt" To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <587C0047.9000002@iee.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal References: <20170115195209.70d3a748.mgorny@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: --r1C8Bom7ewiQGS1QUwu6UnK3pAAIx27wJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 15/01/17 20:02, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: >> 2. Transparency >> --------------- >> Any disciplinary action should be announced by the team in a manner >> specific to the appropriate media where the measure applies. >> The announcement should be visible to all users of that media, >> and contains: >> >> - the name of the user to whom the measure applies, >> >> - the description and length of the measure applied. > I think most of your proposal is reasonable, except for this point. > > I'd prefer that transparency be done in an anonymous way. I'm fine > with the individuals being affected by a disciplinary action > voluntarily choosing to allow this information to be divulged. > However, if somebody is the subject of discipline they shouldn't be > turned into public examples for a few reasons: > > 1. It makes them hard to rejoin the community after their > ban/whatever is over, because now they have a public reputation. > 2. It can damage somebody's public reputation, which could affect > their ability to work on non-Gentoo projects or even for them to find > employment. > 3. Because of #2, it tends to force the subject of an action to > defend their reputation in public, which then leads to arguments/etc. > 4. Also because of #2, it may lead the subject of an action to defend > their reputation using the courts, which can become an expensive > proposition for all involved. > 5. #3-4 will tend to render moot your suggestion to keep the details > of infractions private, since it will probably tend to come out in all > the arguing. Or, if it doesn't then all that argument doesn't > actually serve any productive purpose since there are no facts > involved. > > If the concern is abuse then let those who feel they were the victims > of abuse be the ones to choose whether they make it a public issue. > And by all means publish anonymous information about the volume of > actions so that we can collectively judge whether it is happening too > often/little/etc. > I respectfully disagree. If a persons actions have escalated to an extent where disciplinary action becomes necessary, it should have become patently obvious by this point that something has gone badly wrong, and that the consequences of this are that you may be publicly named and shamed. Where there may be some legal angle, I feel there may be cause to anonymise until legal advice has been sought, but in that event, you may not wish to publish anything until you know where you stand anyway. In the rare event that an error occurs, a public apology may be the correct course of action to rectify any public disclosure that may have previously occurred. This too, should function as a check-and-balance that you're doing The Right Thing(tm). If it is deemed immediate and escalated action is necessary as the First step, I think you're going to be seeking advice anyway, and it should be apparent that such action is only desirable in very rare and severe cases. Again, the knowledge that you may have to quickly backtrack and perform a public apology should function as a check-and-balance. Increased transparency and the fear of real consequences to your actions should be an adequate deterrent to anyone thinking of stirring the pot. It works elsewhere, why should Gentoo be such a special case?! --r1C8Bom7ewiQGS1QUwu6UnK3pAAIx27wJ-- --TOf2S4gBR9jUWwrXlPKH8AbalSi2PX3GC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJYfABHAAoJEEwwM0+TwiNxttIP/19K/GQ9nU83tUT9O+Mhan0Q XRPz25rhB+iYZVtMUQMKVetAJB0K9qZ+/VLUyi5LvccqypyffwEx913vYArZRHJM wn9e5hFk2W5D6t244YjqxOlRztJNk/2filpHSwG6IfoRcjr6bI9ihNADzn5c0vSb 5GmR3xh1UYjZNLh9XtWcgtBlPns0RakyRy/FkQGy06EPs33audM/1HjzgiK59YnS jksy6LOW5bz08YlnLaFDbrKbd6eyRO/rzNUkwK0e5WameQHxzsTpUW7DeIf6svYB SRpe6FTvFwgsfp40L8M0k7lRaPWODzXN339G4Im5U1/JRckIY1LkzNwXzE8/50kq BZQUB6SKjSMf0oKY6BzyVzTC7Nj3dF0zZlk8C1lcVFj/nbNhJ6kR8R6/7AhLSHPq KJriGH08pGGjushgrJyNqxAWNi8rlSPDGmEHmFKAU1DV9hne43FrhqbeQZbDLsxN 4DWYhaZBTtC6nVgE0M9NFy+1ifc2aGCtfK4lmCMAHG4WdDi+TG9zadmFV2IohAyX AM3jROkgdUtzkJUK/QvbQupfdbhOIWF98pfLFaPZbMMHWZh/KPwNVbd6ABmNgXjI oRXIfrhNnfxWyIeWHxOhhj5JohEy1+wP4DVr1qmkQN50Y2ZyXUG6ZGkfrorDi/Ex JQ78sYr4iQmKN6PwB9Tz =/D1l -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TOf2S4gBR9jUWwrXlPKH8AbalSi2PX3GC--