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 B04EE139085 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 17:54:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C2F621C09F; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 17:54:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-x243.google.com (mail-oi0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::243]) (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 C219221C09E for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 17:54:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-x243.google.com with SMTP id w144so8725246oiw.1 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:54:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=scriptkitty-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=Sqx6P+ni94HZSZugIYQiJrhPusFVZB64rNKEeCJoDBY=; b=j2B16va9plpBhz7Z/xIijoWVvZ14UEkgJ/CKkkvVvi/OLu8UvbbsjnLI2B2D3uAGiC 88Ip8F1bRWSOkMnWOp8Z6H/y75i9Fy7RGcwuTwX+PGWCM/tgKBQ9L3hl1/tR4DhFYOIX ihkXFJfswJKsqwzPuEkfVsxTT5K6sQ2MsIiO/7eBAh8k9oKw+7Ca0/Cafyb3TlSxzSDI g7ZhO8KYtEJbNb5p5v4lW99amHZWmV2CWhdxoOtnF8w0485ROADKHpDeLOiU8Lwpx0uW z2tCId2cCoYSbzcBJSYQnOm/Rcy6FUjNx2qlGeYtMrLAXyPITWGKQ6xY/WZk6KoMjtjb iXKg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Sqx6P+ni94HZSZugIYQiJrhPusFVZB64rNKEeCJoDBY=; b=mlOhQDuJkEKsRiYU2VvZiEmZ0NnZ3YWjkjoZBwIfjvF/OrcnV3WHOusiUK5g9wUK3I zWbrUihS20l7NWHUk/O6IiTiKr/bMPmck126c9wbci8n8lZGFbvYq6UtxkHGC+jHcP8L 39XBPrrBu0ADVTwkxlduCsFJZ7TSPI0OL+xXxnDHp3x9065UTlufhsqW5aq/Ldd2oG1s TL1nkRDnST/vmvsxtiGOo+CAJx/r6iOjQ/kN3401BLoa4eDJQJZr2HrA5kQ8Zn9JSXxf z5u8/dLQeL7SsmUTlYc0iff9f+KEMo56sjt3wFq8sGfGym+Wyd3sikfn66YcmP9oA9up FbaA== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLWi+kNc5dqZD7XIKFxM0MSrFSm/Gz0YDfqd/BttLmiHQKuSu617ps/CZ2NOIUVZDxZjhzW/WMe4oUyZQ== X-Received: by 10.202.183.6 with SMTP id h6mr9075514oif.92.1484589240720; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:54:00 -0800 (PST) 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 Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com Received: by 10.182.156.15 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:54:00 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [50.184.239.68] In-Reply-To: <587C0047.9000002@iee.org> References: <20170115195209.70d3a748.mgorny@gentoo.org> <587C0047.9000002@iee.org> From: Alec Warner Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:54:00 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 837O_LNpJUfGn6rL33XIurH4rTA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal To: gentoo-project Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cd1ec54b5ab054639de0c X-Archives-Salt: 68c0fcdc-c7f7-480f-b45c-f0ea82e9bef3 X-Archives-Hash: 99a45f240378fa776a0c1ca2d84e5dbd --001a113cd1ec54b5ab054639de0c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > 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). > I think you vastly underestimate the number of bans that occur on mediums such as IRC, the forums, or bugzilla. -A > > 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?! > > --001a113cd1ec54b5ab054639de0c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= un, Jan 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org><= /span> wrote:
On 15/01/17 20:02, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 2. Transparency
>> ---------------
>> Any disciplinary action should be announced by the team in a manne= r
>> 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.=C2=A0 I&= #39;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 b= e
> turned into public examples for a few reasons:
>
> 1.=C2=A0 It makes them hard to rejoin the community after their
> ban/whatever is over, because now they have a public reputation.
> 2.=C2=A0 It can damage somebody's public reputation, which could a= ffect
> their ability to work on non-Gentoo projects or even for them to find<= br> > employment.
> 3.=C2=A0 Because of #2, it tends to force the subject of an action to<= br> > defend their reputation in public, which then leads to arguments/etc.<= br> > 4.=C2=A0 Also because of #2, it may lead the subject of an action to d= efend
> their reputation using the courts, which can become an expensive
> proposition for all involved.
> 5.=C2=A0 #3-4 will tend to render moot your suggestion to keep the det= ails
> of infractions private, since it will probably tend to come out in all=
> the arguing.=C2=A0 Or, if it doesn't then all that argument doesn&= #39;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<= br> > 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<= br> > 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).

I think you vastly underesti= mate the number of bans that occur on mediums such as IRC, the forums, or b= ugzilla.

-A
=C2=A0

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 b= e
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?!


--001a113cd1ec54b5ab054639de0c--