Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-04-08

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@gentoo.org> wrote:
> However -- despite how jaded I have become with all the flaming, and
> despite how little attention I pay it these days -- I can't help but
> be disappointed that someone not only associated with Gentoo, but in
> such a position as Zero_Chaos is in, is allowed to make such statements.

Unfortunately sniping on lists/IRC/etc has been an issue for a while.
I'm all for actions to try to reduce it, but part of the problem is
that anybody actually tries to do anything about it everybody screams
bloody murder (the proctors being the ultimate example of this).

If somebody finds themselves the victim of this sort of behavior I
recommend taking it up with Comrel, and Council if unsatisfied.
Likewise if somebody feels they have been abused by QA I'd recommend
the same.  What I wouldn't suggest doing is just getting your own
hands dirty in retaliation.

This whole matter has been one debatable judgement call after another
for the most part.  The only thing that was an explicit contradiction
of written policy (GLEP 48) was reverting a QA mask.  Everything else
is the more grey area of code of conduct, how to deal with conduct,
inclusive behaviors, etc.  I think that all-around there is much we
can all learn from it, but if we punished people for most of this
stuff we'd have to punish just about everybody in the community sooner
or later.

For most of this stuff I really think the old proctor solutions of a
warning or a day-long list/IRC ban would be perfectly appropriate.  It
gets the message across while being little more than an inconvenience.
 That is very much the domain of Comrel.

The only thing that strongly concerns me here was the revert of a QA
mask.  Not only is this a policy violation, but it is an abuse of cvs
commit rights.  I don't care for some of the attitude on the lists,
and perhaps some reading this don't care for my own opinion.  I think
we need to draw a harder line when it comes to cvs access.  As
developers we effectively have root access to each other's boxes, and
to those belonging to every member of the community.  Granted, this
was a fairly minor abuse of commit rights as such things go, and I'm
fine with a fairly minor response.  I just get concerned when people
intentionally violate policy with regard to commits and are apparently
unrepentant about it (at least on the lists, and I do want to leave it
in Comrel's hands because I don't think that impersonal idealism is
the best way to handle the dispensing of "justice").

If you're the victim of QA abuse, complain, and do it as loudly (but
constructively) as you wish.  If the situation doesn't get resolved,
hold the Council accountable, and vote us out if necessary.  What we
must not be doing is getting into commit wars.

I think we've been doing a pretty good job at finding compromises with
all the controversial matters that have hit the distro over the years
(PMS, paludis, systemd, udev, eudev, /usr, etc).  What makes us work
as a distro is that even when we disagree we allow each other to make
progress on the projects we're interested in, and as a result our
users get the best of every option.  We can't afford to allow
legitimate debate to turn into a culture of possessiveness where
packages become personal property and we begin to undermine each
other's work.

So, that is my two cents, but ultimately how we work together as a
community ought to be up to the community.  We should all be holding
each other accountable, and agreeing on the rules that govern us.  I'd
be shocked if many didn't disagree with something I've written, and
I'm happy to hear about it on this list, by email, or in IRC.  I don't
want my vote on these matters to be just a matter of personal opinion,
though since everybody is affected by it you have the right to hear it
all the same.

Perhaps I'll just leave all of us with this parting "advice:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_hands

Rich