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 97EFC138334 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 11:54:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B264E0B40; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 11:54:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf1-f181.google.com (mail-pf1-f181.google.com [209.85.210.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25AA3E0B3B for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 11:54:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-f181.google.com with SMTP id w73so5462925pfk.10 for ; Sun, 03 Feb 2019 03:54:10 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MzuMKcgLCXK2FQbB94kffhi0gtBCa5wpFgZJe1hzEWY=; b=n62XPmRhxaaJnA5kZ0Jd5gHuS3aQkekEz0OueJ6JuCGgjmsAAceRFe3WFmDXB0N3cd KzJB13j4MzEV6WRqf3wRpoQkfxiR4oqMvFSZOwY8LArMbGJzaQhPfFbzE5rVdxNjE/k9 1KxA5Pt7mK4O2iuaWKELZauRAfTpZeJTutbODizopSrSX8zWnNFAfjQP1/NIW/XBuxB4 /iA5Whnjjyb/vq73HQtdLIJE0PuIDVHr9q3+y5U/zfNyewpyJlKH/TZ8ozdwNwvXm83N l5ObQUDBsvbD8A5Jbg1ujTWLXs+9Ry9cec0Hwqcv3r+bQHXGHsaP/2A5satfO6DI0n36 K/Rg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubN7Wnx4idDrXhWQIWPNq0zkM1PDLH1Jy55AZ1P4aepzLcgssra NB234C3lbBL09X+3IO2tdsFkZbcxZegpAGU8w4s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYX3rhWEEH/hixAB0eZ4f9hyzHPTpjKsaEm7Qynqizn2umzyjpLcAMjD/r3Xu1KvFuN+Auv4rqJQRDVP91fIno= X-Received: by 2002:a63:104d:: with SMTP id 13mr9333486pgq.303.1549194848574; Sun, 03 Feb 2019 03:54:08 -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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2beb3305-396f-8b10-e2a1-4008d8505fa9@gentoo.org> <6a80c6d4-3f4e-2492-f883-e57fa457b7af@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <6a80c6d4-3f4e-2492-f883-e57fa457b7af@gentoo.org> From: Rich Freeman Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 06:53:56 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions To: desultory Cc: gentoo-project Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: 4cbce7e1-a1ca-459e-9875-0b4cd978b96a X-Archives-Hash: d74b7af4e1c68c782a204a813ac5e2a0 On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 11:22 PM desultory 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