On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:30 AM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 6/4/19 3:15 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > > I looked at the links a bit, but there's very little substance there. > Does > > anyone want to give some more context and background? > > There are several elements being discussed; but noting, in no particular > order, some of them; > > (a) The forums are hosted on Gentoo infra and in the name of the > distribution, but there is a very split user and developer base; are the > forums properly moderated wrt (i) CoC (ii) legal liability / copyrights > (iii) potential PR issues towards the distribution for user contributed > content; > (i) I think you need to convince the existing forum-mods team that the CoC matters, and that they should actually enforce it. I don't see a very robust conversation with the existing mods team on this topic. My impression from forum-mods is that they view this action as a cudgel (to get rid of / change something most developers dislike) rather than as the CoC is intended (to encourage a more open and safe Gentoo Community, presumably.) (ii) is a Foundation issue, as the Council has no legal liability for the forums or their content that I am aware of. I (personally as a board member) am happy with the existing legal liability the forums represents. (iii) I'm not sure how the forums differ from other UCG Gentoo hosts (wiki, bugzilla, blogs) or Gentoo affiliated areas (public Gentoo prefixed Freenode IRC channels.) Are you suggesting we not host UCG, or why would we limit this action to the Forums? Or you assert that we have sufficient moderation of the other UCG channels but forums is not sufficiently moderated? > (b) Part of (a) discussion is appeals process, so a user banned from > forums can appeal a ban to other parts (comrel, council), so a decision > with regards to forums also affects other projects / groups within the > distribution. Is the additional overhead worthwhile? I think if you want to root agency in the Council or its delegate that is fine, but I haven't seen this as a problem in practice. I also don't see things like "Oh I was banned from #gentoo for 4 weeks" come to comrel very often, FWIW. > > (c) The discussion has mostly focused on OTW (Off-The-Wall) section of > the forums, one argument for keeping it is it is a convenient place for > moderators to move threads that are started in other forums but doesn't > belong there instead of deleting it, and keeping off-topic discussion in > separate threads minimize the noise for the rest of forums. > I'm not sure we have explored this sufficiently, so I'm trying to drive more discussion here. Why has it focused on OTW? (i) Because it contains content that violates the CoC? (ii) Because it contains content unrelated to Gentoo? (iii) Because it contains content we find objectionable? I'm trying to narrow down the scope here. Most UCG sites contain (i), and (ii) and probably (iii). I have concerns that basically no one in the council even uses the forum, we have no data that describes a problem on the forum, and we are (as described in the 10/02 meeting log notes[0]) trying to legislate the job of a moderation team that we have essentially failed to achieve any common ground with. The other exciting part is that currently the forums are hosted at the pleasure of the Board on behalf of the community and the board owns the trademarks and relationship with the sponsor who donates the hardware for the forums. I want to desperately avoid an outcome where the Council votes to make changes to the forum, but the board objects to said changes. In other words; I want to achieve some kind of consensus on how the forums should be operated. [0] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20190210.txt > > -- > Kristian Fiskerstrand > OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net > fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 > >