[gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[zlg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3298 bytes --]

The Bylaws text[1] currently indicates this:

~~~
Section 4.9. Termination from Membership.

Membership may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of trustees
in the event that any member acts contrary to the purpose(s) of the
Gentoo Foundation.
~~~

I propose a bylaw specifically outlining certain behaviors that will not
be tolerated by the Foundation under any circumstances. Namely, the use
of legal threats to short-circuit established conflict resolution
processes laid out by the Gentoo Foundation (and Comrel), including
threats against Officers.

Here's a rough draft of what I have in mind:

~~~
Section 4.9.1: Aggressive Legal Behavior

Foundation members who engage in aggressive legal behavior shall
surrender their Foundation membership immediately, and may re-apply for
membership no sooner than the end of the current Trustee term, at the
sole discretion of the sitting Trustees.

Aggressive legal behavior includes, but is not limited to:

* Insinuating or implying that legal action may follow if demands are
  not met;
* Threatening legal action against a Foundation member or Officer
  personally;
* Contacting the employer of a Foundation member or Officer in an
  attempt to cut off their source of personal income.
~~~

(Trustees may want to replace "surrender ... immediately" with "per a
vote of Trustees", if a more democratic process is desired)

Rationale
---------

The Gentoo Foundation and its officers have been on the receiving end of
such threats in the past. It is not in the spirit of Gentoo or its Code
of Conduct to legally coerce others into compliance with one's will. By
acting directly against another Foundation member or a Foundation
Officer, the person communicating legal threats is an existential threat
to the Foundation itself and "raises the temperature" [2] of the
community.  This reduces positive community participation and destroys
morale, whether this occurs in public or in private. It is not healthy
for the continued operation of the Foundation, or the community that
supports it, to tolerate aggressive legal behavior. Thus, I ask the
Trustees to consider adding explicit notes about such destructive
conduct to the bylaws.

I believe that the addition and enforcement of such a bylaw will result
in more civil and direct communication among Foundation members, and
encourage us to solve problems on our own instead of threatening to use
law as a weapon against each other. Additionally, such behavior is
counter to the purposes of the Foundation. Legitimate legal concerns can
be communicated in good faith without threatening others, using weasel
words, or attempting to silence other members by force.

Such behavior concerns me due to the growing prevalence of things like
SWATting[3], which has resulted in the deaths of innocent people. [3's
references, 4] I do not think Gentoo is immune to this; a proactive
approach is needed to curb this type of behavior before it has time to
build.

Thank you for reading.

~zlg

[1]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_4.9._Termination_from_Membership.
[2]: http://freenode.net/changuide
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting
[4]: WARNING: CONTAINS POLICE BODY CAM FOOTAGE. NOT SAFE FOR WORK
     http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3960 bytes --]

The current bylaws are sufficient.

Threats should not be tolerated. It seems like right now, all it takes are
the trustees to vote on it to remove that member. Your addition leaves it
up to interpretation whether specified events fit the criteria you define,
which just make it more confusing than a simple vote of trustees in the
first place.

So I don't think any of this helps; and with the videos at the end, it just
kind of seems paranoid.

-Daniel

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:50 PM, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:

> The Bylaws text[1] currently indicates this:
>
> ~~~
> Section 4.9. Termination from Membership.
>
> Membership may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of trustees
> in the event that any member acts contrary to the purpose(s) of the
> Gentoo Foundation.
> ~~~
>
> I propose a bylaw specifically outlining certain behaviors that will not
> be tolerated by the Foundation under any circumstances. Namely, the use
> of legal threats to short-circuit established conflict resolution
> processes laid out by the Gentoo Foundation (and Comrel), including
> threats against Officers.
>
> Here's a rough draft of what I have in mind:
>
> ~~~
> Section 4.9.1: Aggressive Legal Behavior
>
> Foundation members who engage in aggressive legal behavior shall
> surrender their Foundation membership immediately, and may re-apply for
> membership no sooner than the end of the current Trustee term, at the
> sole discretion of the sitting Trustees.
>
> Aggressive legal behavior includes, but is not limited to:
>
> * Insinuating or implying that legal action may follow if demands are
>   not met;
> * Threatening legal action against a Foundation member or Officer
>   personally;
> * Contacting the employer of a Foundation member or Officer in an
>   attempt to cut off their source of personal income.
> ~~~
>
> (Trustees may want to replace "surrender ... immediately" with "per a
> vote of Trustees", if a more democratic process is desired)
>
> Rationale
> ---------
>
> The Gentoo Foundation and its officers have been on the receiving end of
> such threats in the past. It is not in the spirit of Gentoo or its Code
> of Conduct to legally coerce others into compliance with one's will. By
> acting directly against another Foundation member or a Foundation
> Officer, the person communicating legal threats is an existential threat
> to the Foundation itself and "raises the temperature" [2] of the
> community.  This reduces positive community participation and destroys
> morale, whether this occurs in public or in private. It is not healthy
> for the continued operation of the Foundation, or the community that
> supports it, to tolerate aggressive legal behavior. Thus, I ask the
> Trustees to consider adding explicit notes about such destructive
> conduct to the bylaws.
>
> I believe that the addition and enforcement of such a bylaw will result
> in more civil and direct communication among Foundation members, and
> encourage us to solve problems on our own instead of threatening to use
> law as a weapon against each other. Additionally, such behavior is
> counter to the purposes of the Foundation. Legitimate legal concerns can
> be communicated in good faith without threatening others, using weasel
> words, or attempting to silence other members by force.
>
> Such behavior concerns me due to the growing prevalence of things like
> SWATting[3], which has resulted in the deaths of innocent people. [3's
> references, 4] I do not think Gentoo is immune to this; a proactive
> approach is needed to curb this type of behavior before it has time to
> build.
>
> Thank you for reading.
>
> ~zlg
>
> [1]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_4.9.
> _Termination_from_Membership.
> [2]: http://freenode.net/changuide
> [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting
> [4]: WARNING: CONTAINS POLICE BODY CAM FOOTAGE. NOT SAFE FOR WORK
>      http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5050 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[zlg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2065 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:41:11PM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> The current bylaws are sufficient.
> 
> Threats should not be tolerated. It seems like right now, all it takes are
> the trustees to vote on it to remove that member. Your addition leaves it
> up to interpretation whether specified events fit the criteria you define,
> which just make it more confusing than a simple vote of trustees in the
> first place.

All of our policies are written in a natural language, which leaves them
open to interpretation by a human. How would you improve the wording of
the criteria?

> 
> So I don't think any of this helps; and with the videos at the end, it just
> kind of seems paranoid.

The intent was to show that the phenomenon is real and poses a threat to
us. The all-caps warning was being respectful of the circumstances that
people may be reading the list under. I thought I put enough thought and
effort into my recommendation to not be written off and disregarded as
paranoid. In an age where information is gathered en masse and
often misused against people, I hardly consider it paranoid to be
concerned about the safety of our members.

Which bylaw(s) already cover legal threats? 4.9 is a bylaw with broad,
general language that is also subject to interpretation. Our Code of
Conduct does not cover this behavior, either. The closest thing is
"mean-spirited", which is actually *less* specific than what I outlined.

It comes down to this: these events *can* and *do* happen, and some of
our members *have* threatened legal action in response to situations
they didn't like. There is no denying any of that. What will Gentoo do
about it when it's one of our own who loses their job or their life at
the hands of an angry person with a phone?  Should we stand by and wait
until damage is done before acting?  I think we can do better than that.

As mentioned in my prior mail, it's a draft. Patches welcome.
> 
> -Daniel
> 
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:50 PM, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> >[snip]
> >

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3743 bytes --]

I think the "rules" as it stands give the trustees the ability to remove
any member that they feel is disruptive or not good for the project. They
don't need to provide a reason or justification. It is at their discretion.
So disruptive people can be removed. If I am misunderstanding this, let me
know.

I understand what you are getting at though, but to make it sound better I
would take a positive stance, and list expectations in the Code of Conduct.
I'll will give you an example:

"Foundation members are expected to act in good faith to cooperate with
others and resolve problems constructively, including the use of our
official channels for dispute resolution. The Foundation reserves the right
to remove anyone's membership who they feel is being disruptive to the
project or not acting in the spirit of cooperation, and depending on the
severity of the behavior, this may not even include a warning. Therefore,
it is important that as a Foundation member that you are aware of this. We
expect that you will not only cooperate but act in a way that models
professionalism and respect -- that is our standard."

That's a friendly warning, and if people read it, I think they will feel
"Cool - the Foundation is trying to maintain a professional environment. I
can get behind that. And I know that they expect that from me and if I
deviate from that, I know what the consequences might be." Then I really
don't feel like the Trustees have any hoops they need to jump through to
remove people -- they can exercise their rights as described in the bylaws.

-Daniel



On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:18 PM, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:41:11PM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> > The current bylaws are sufficient.
> >
> > Threats should not be tolerated. It seems like right now, all it takes
> are
> > the trustees to vote on it to remove that member. Your addition leaves it
> > up to interpretation whether specified events fit the criteria you
> define,
> > which just make it more confusing than a simple vote of trustees in the
> > first place.
>
> All of our policies are written in a natural language, which leaves them
> open to interpretation by a human. How would you improve the wording of
> the criteria?
>
> >
> > So I don't think any of this helps; and with the videos at the end, it
> just
> > kind of seems paranoid.
>
> The intent was to show that the phenomenon is real and poses a threat to
> us. The all-caps warning was being respectful of the circumstances that
> people may be reading the list under. I thought I put enough thought and
> effort into my recommendation to not be written off and disregarded as
> paranoid. In an age where information is gathered en masse and
> often misused against people, I hardly consider it paranoid to be
> concerned about the safety of our members.
>
> Which bylaw(s) already cover legal threats? 4.9 is a bylaw with broad,
> general language that is also subject to interpretation. Our Code of
> Conduct does not cover this behavior, either. The closest thing is
> "mean-spirited", which is actually *less* specific than what I outlined.
>
> It comes down to this: these events *can* and *do* happen, and some of
> our members *have* threatened legal action in response to situations
> they didn't like. There is no denying any of that. What will Gentoo do
> about it when it's one of our own who loses their job or their life at
> the hands of an angry person with a phone?  Should we stand by and wait
> until damage is done before acting?  I think we can do better than that.
>
> As mentioned in my prior mail, it's a draft. Patches welcome.
> >
> > -Daniel
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:50 PM, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > >[snip]
> > >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4532 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org> wrote:
> I think the "rules" as it stands give the trustees the ability to remove any
> member that they feel is disruptive or not good for the project. They don't
> need to provide a reason or justification. It is at their discretion. So
> disruptive people can be removed. If I am misunderstanding this, let me
> know.

Indeed, I'd even go further and simplify the bylaw to say:

Section 4.9. Termination from Membership.

Membership may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of trustees.

And just leave it at that.

If you're concerned about somebody threatening to sue, then it is
probably better to NOT give them a reason for dismissal, unless
specifically required to do so by law.

If the law doesn't require a reason, and you don't give a reason, then
they don't really have much ground for argument.  If you do give a
reason, you've now given them something to argue with when there was
no need to do so.

IMO a better defense against Gentoo volunteers being sued is to join
an umbrella that is actually equipped to handle these situations, and
which will probably be less likely to give people grounds to sue,
especially since they would no longer have standing as members to do
so.

And keep in mind that kicking somebody out doesn't really diminish
their standing to sue, since they can potentially sue based on actions
taken while they were a member, and the loss of membership becomes one
more cause for action.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2309 bytes --]

On 18-02-08 17:03:07, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org> wrote:
> > I think the "rules" as it stands give the trustees the ability to remove any
> > member that they feel is disruptive or not good for the project. They don't
> > need to provide a reason or justification. It is at their discretion. So
> > disruptive people can be removed. If I am misunderstanding this, let me
> > know.
> 
> Indeed, I'd even go further and simplify the bylaw to say:
> 
> Section 4.9. Termination from Membership.
> 
> Membership may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of trustees.
> 
> And just leave it at that.
> 
> If you're concerned about somebody threatening to sue, then it is
> probably better to NOT give them a reason for dismissal, unless
> specifically required to do so by law.
> 
> If the law doesn't require a reason, and you don't give a reason, then
> they don't really have much ground for argument.  If you do give a
> reason, you've now given them something to argue with when there was
> no need to do so.
> 
> IMO a better defense against Gentoo volunteers being sued is to join
> an umbrella that is actually equipped to handle these situations, and
> which will probably be less likely to give people grounds to sue,
> especially since they would no longer have standing as members to do
> so.
> 
> And keep in mind that kicking somebody out doesn't really diminish
> their standing to sue, since they can potentially sue based on actions
> taken while they were a member, and the loss of membership becomes one
> more cause for action.
> 

I was going to respond more fully, but yes we discussed this a little
bit already and this was our conclusion (specifically that 4.9 gives us
enough power to act as it is).

For those wanting the current text of the bylaw, it's as follows:

Section 4.9. Termination from Membership.
Membership may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of trustees
in the event that any member acts contrary to the purpose(s) of the
Gentoo Foundation.

While this is not quite as open, the people who decide who acts contrary
to the purpose of the foundation are the trustees (in my non-lawyer
point of view).

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 717 bytes --]

I think rich0 is spot-on here where if we make it even shorter, it gets
even stronger:

Section 4.9. Termination from Membership.
Membership may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of trustees.

No explanation required. Right now, it sounds like the trustees may need to
justify that the member is acting contrary to the purpose(s) of the
Foundation. When really, no justification should be required (it just opens
the door for endless argument, grumpiness, and thus more likely to lead to
legal action). At the very least, it should say that the trustees can
remove anyone *they feel* (ie. based on *their opinion*, which can't be
argued) is acting poorly. That removes the possibility of debate.

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4009 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 916 bytes --]

On 18-02-08 15:33:02, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> I think rich0 is spot-on here where if we make it even shorter, it gets
> even stronger:
> 
> Section 4.9. Termination from Membership.
> Membership may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of trustees.
> 
> No explanation required. Right now, it sounds like the trustees may need to
> justify that the member is acting contrary to the purpose(s) of the
> Foundation. When really, no justification should be required (it just opens
> the door for endless argument, grumpiness, and thus more likely to lead to
> legal action). At the very least, it should say that the trustees can
> remove anyone *they feel* (ie. based on *their opinion*, which can't be
> argued) is acting poorly. That removes the possibility of debate.
> 

Agreed, this is the only improvement I see us making to that specific
bylaw.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1840 bytes --]

>>>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Matthew Thode wrote:

> On 18-02-08 15:33:02, Daniel Robbins wrote:
>> I think rich0 is spot-on here where if we make it even shorter, it gets
>> even stronger:
>> 
>> Section 4.9. Termination from Membership.
>> Membership may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of
>> trustees.
>> 
>> No explanation required. Right now, it sounds like the trustees may
>> need to justify that the member is acting contrary to the
>> purpose(s) of the Foundation. When really, no justification should
>> be required (it just opens the door for endless argument,
>> grumpiness, and thus more likely to lead to legal action). At the
>> very least, it should say that the trustees can remove anyone *they
>> feel* (ie. based on *their opinion*, which can't be argued) is
>> acting poorly. That removes the possibility of debate.

> Agreed, this is the only improvement I see us making to that specific
> bylaw.

Have I understood this right, removing the possibility of debate and
giving trustees the power to haphazardly kick members is seen as an
*improvement* over what there is now? I would rather call it
despotism.

Just for comparison, look at the corresponding wording in the bylaws
of Gentoo e.V. (my attempt of a translation, original German is in
https://gentoo-ev.org/w/images/8/86/Satzung.pdf, §4 (5)):

"A member may be excluded by decision of the board: for damaging the
reputation of the Verein, for failing to pay the membership fee, or
for another important reason. The board must communicate the decision
to the excluded member in writing, indicating the reasons, and give
him hearing on request. The general members' assembly can be invoked
for an appeal against the board's decision; membership is suspended
until the decision of the general assembly."

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2453 bytes --]

Ulm,

You are using hyperbole. A majority vote of trustees is required. That is
not haphazard, as you state -- it is a process that requires majority
consensus of elected officials. We assume that the trustees are looking out
for the project. The trustees are there to protect the community so they
must have this ability.

If you have concerns over potential for abuse, I'd be interested to hear
those concerns and discuss those.

Best,

Daniel

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:32 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> >>>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Matthew Thode wrote:
>
> > On 18-02-08 15:33:02, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> >> I think rich0 is spot-on here where if we make it even shorter, it gets
> >> even stronger:
> >>
> >> Section 4.9. Termination from Membership.
> >> Membership may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of
> >> trustees.
> >>
> >> No explanation required. Right now, it sounds like the trustees may
> >> need to justify that the member is acting contrary to the
> >> purpose(s) of the Foundation. When really, no justification should
> >> be required (it just opens the door for endless argument,
> >> grumpiness, and thus more likely to lead to legal action). At the
> >> very least, it should say that the trustees can remove anyone *they
> >> feel* (ie. based on *their opinion*, which can't be argued) is
> >> acting poorly. That removes the possibility of debate.
>
> > Agreed, this is the only improvement I see us making to that specific
> > bylaw.
>
> Have I understood this right, removing the possibility of debate and
> giving trustees the power to haphazardly kick members is seen as an
> *improvement* over what there is now? I would rather call it
> despotism.
>
> Just for comparison, look at the corresponding wording in the bylaws
> of Gentoo e.V. (my attempt of a translation, original German is in
> https://gentoo-ev.org/w/images/8/86/Satzung.pdf, §4 (5)):
>
> "A member may be excluded by decision of the board: for damaging the
> reputation of the Verein, for failing to pay the membership fee, or
> for another important reason. The board must communicate the decision
> to the excluded member in writing, indicating the reasons, and give
> him hearing on request. The general members' assembly can be invoked
> for an appeal against the board's decision; membership is suspended
> until the decision of the general assembly."
>
> Ulrich
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3223 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 618 bytes --]

>>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Daniel Robbins wrote:

[Please don't top-post.]

> You are using hyperbole. A majority vote of trustees is required.
> That is not haphazard, as you state -- it is a process that requires
> majority consensus of elected officials. We assume that the trustees
> are looking out for the project. The trustees are there to protect
> the community so they must have this ability.

I don't disagree with this. Still, trustees should not be able to
exclude a member without a reason, and they should communicate that
reason (not necessarily in public, but at least to the excluded
member).

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1040 bytes --]

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>
> I don't disagree with this. Still, trustees should not be able to
> exclude a member without a reason, and they should communicate that
> reason (not necessarily in public, but at least to the excluded
> member)


Well, they would need to have a reason to go through the hassle of removing
a member. I would be more concerned that they would communicate a general
reason to the Gentoo community so that there would be some accountability.
Of course, this is a delicate balancing act -- how much information to
share, etc. I think it would be highly specific on the circumstances how
much information is appropriate to share, which would be hard to predict
ahead of time and make rules about. I think that in these circumstances,
the more reason/justification that is provided, the more 'ammunition' you
are giving to a potentially combative person to continue a conflict that
the trustees are desperately trying to end for the sake of the project.

Best,

Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1424 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[zlg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1998 bytes --]

On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 09:04:19AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> 
> [Please don't top-post.]
> 
> > You are using hyperbole. A majority vote of trustees is required.
> > That is not haphazard, as you state -- it is a process that requires
> > majority consensus of elected officials. We assume that the trustees
> > are looking out for the project. The trustees are there to protect
> > the community so they must have this ability.
> 
> I don't disagree with this. Still, trustees should not be able to
> exclude a member without a reason, and they should communicate that
> reason (not necessarily in public, but at least to the excluded
> member).
> 
> Ulrich

From what I've seen, a common approach to conflict resolution is via the
bug-tracker, or e-mails to comrel. These create 'paper trails' for us,
so I don't think that's much of a problem in terms of discovery. The
Trustees could suggest that official channels be used before petitioning
them for a decision on Foundation membership. They are not required to
do so, but I agree that knowing the reason is helpful. And instead of
the reasoning being some sort of rationale, it should be something
grounded in fact and fact alone:

"You did X, which we have communicated results in Y. Z person went
through our official channels and those channels failed to resolve the
situation. Thus, the Trustees are taking action to protect the
Foundation and community. You may re-apply for Foundation membership on
[date]."

Anything less is favoritism or double-standard. If we cannot enforce our
guidelines evenly, then we lack credibility and don't deserve to be
taken seriously.

Enforcement is made difficult because we allow our decisions to be
impacted by the social status of the person who is being claimed
against. Others see this, and it reduces our reputation.

Short, fact-oriented messaging I think is the way to go for enforcement.

~zlg

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 745 bytes --]

>
> From what I've seen, a common approach to conflict resolution is via the
> bug-tracker, or e-mails to comrel. These create 'paper trails' for us,
> so I don't think that's much of a problem in terms of discovery. The
> Trustees could suggest that official channels be used before petitioning
> them for a decision on Foundation membership.

You mean something like a "background check"?

Well, that might at least prevent that someone becomes foundation member "for 
contributions to gentoo" while being banned by comrel on gentoo infrastructure 
"for continous misbehaviour". (Yep that happened in the past.)

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1188 bytes --]

On 18-02-09 09:04:19, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> 
> [Please don't top-post.]
> 
> > You are using hyperbole. A majority vote of trustees is required.
> > That is not haphazard, as you state -- it is a process that requires
> > majority consensus of elected officials. We assume that the trustees
> > are looking out for the project. The trustees are there to protect
> > the community so they must have this ability.
> 
> I don't disagree with this. Still, trustees should not be able to
> exclude a member without a reason, and they should communicate that
> reason (not necessarily in public, but at least to the excluded
> member).
> 

The goal of keeping it open is to remove (as much as we can) the
possibility of recourse (legal or otherwise).  In practice I think we'd
tend to communicate with the community, but there are times where we may
need to keep something more private.  I don't want to write ourselves
into a corner where we HAVE to do something one way, or if something is
not listed as a reason to kick someone we can't get rid of them (we
missed something).

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Michał Górny]

W dniu pią, 09.02.2018 o godzinie 00∶48 -0700, użytkownik Daniel Robbins
napisał:
> Ulm,
> 
> You are using hyperbole. A majority vote of trustees is required. That is
> not haphazard, as you state -- it is a process that requires majority
> consensus of elected officials. We assume that the trustees are looking out
> for the project. The trustees are there to protect the community so they
> must have this ability.
> 

You seem to have a very idealistic assumption of who Trustees are
and how they are 'elected'.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1040 bytes --]

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:24 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> W dniu pią, 09.02.2018 o godzinie 00∶48 -0700, użytkownik Daniel Robbins
> napisał:
> > Ulm,
> >
> > You are using hyperbole. A majority vote of trustees is required. That is
> > not haphazard, as you state -- it is a process that requires majority
> > consensus of elected officials. We assume that the trustees are looking
> out
> > for the project. The trustees are there to protect the community so they
> > must have this ability.
> >
>
> You seem to have a very idealistic assumption of who Trustees are
> and how they are 'elected'.
>

I really am not in a position to 'judge' the trustees. I do know that they
are elected. So if a trustee does a bad job, they can be voted out by the
members. This is the responsibility of the members -- to do research and
use their vote wisely. I also know that being a trustee is often a
thankless job and involves lots of necessary work that often isn't very fun
to do.

Best,

Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1500 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1102 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, 8. Februar 2018, 23:39:21 CET schrieb Matthew Thode:
>
> > Membership may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of trustees.
> > 
> > No explanation required. Right now, it sounds like the trustees may need
> > to
> > justify that the member is acting contrary to the purpose(s) of the
> > Foundation. When really, no justification should be required (it just
> > opens
> > the door for endless argument, grumpiness, and thus more likely to lead to
> > legal action). At the very least, it should say that the trustees can
> > remove anyone *they feel* (ie. based on *their opinion*, which can't be
> > argued) is acting poorly. That removes the possibility of debate.
> 
> Agreed, this is the only improvement I see us making to that specific
> bylaw.

I agree that this modification of the bylaws makes sense.

(Just that I'll mercilessly get back to these e-mails here when I'm ever asked 
to publicly justify a comrel decision again.)

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 363 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> If the law doesn't require a reason, and you don't give a reason, then
> they don't really have much ground for argument.  If you do give a
> reason, you've now given them something to argue with when there was
> no need to do so.
>

YES, this ^^^^^^^ is what I am trying to say :)


>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 820 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[zlg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6020 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 02:34:33PM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> I think the "rules" as it stands give the trustees the ability to remove
> any member that they feel is disruptive or not good for the project. They
> don't need to provide a reason or justification. It is at their discretion.
> So disruptive people can be removed. If I am misunderstanding this, let me
> know.
> 
> I understand what you are getting at though, but to make it sound better I
> would take a positive stance, and list expectations in the Code of Conduct.
> I'll will give you an example:
> 
> "Foundation members are expected to act in good faith to cooperate with
> others and resolve problems constructively, including the use of our
> official channels for dispute resolution. The Foundation reserves the right
> to remove anyone's membership who they feel is being disruptive to the
> project or not acting in the spirit of cooperation, and depending on the
> severity of the behavior, this may not even include a warning. Therefore,
> it is important that as a Foundation member that you are aware of this. We
> expect that you will not only cooperate but act in a way that models
> professionalism and respect -- that is our standard."
> 
> That's a friendly warning, and if people read it, I think they will feel
> "Cool - the Foundation is trying to maintain a professional environment. I
> can get behind that. And I know that they expect that from me and if I
> deviate from that, I know what the consequences might be." Then I really
> don't feel like the Trustees have any hoops they need to jump through to
> remove people -- they can exercise their rights as described in the bylaws.
> 
> -Daniel

That's something I can get behind, in spirit. Perhaps examples could aid
understanding.

I like the angle of better establishing our expectations, but maybe we
could be a little more precise so there's less room for interpretation.
(it seems to be a shared goal) I understand that we vote Council and
Trustees in to do this interpretation for us, but who among us can nail
down what it means to act "professional"? It's a loaded term that means
different things to different people and even different cultures. I've
seen too many instances of people accused of "unprofessional behavior"
and ignored due to said judgment, with no supporting reasoning or even a
working definition of the phrase. I would argue that accusations of
unprofessionalism without supporting reasoning is unprofessional in
itself, but others may disagree. If we can't establish a shared
understanding, the text you laid out may not be as effective as we hope.

We must also consider that what we do is volunteer work rather than
work-for-hire. In that context, none of us are professionals unless a
company pays us to work on Gentoo. If we can unpack "professional", we
could likely describe the conduct we're after without resorting to such
an unclear umbrella term.

Additionally, someone could use official conflict resolution
channels to overwhelm Comrel or whoever is handling the situation, and
try to force engagement with their target using the guise of
"cooperation". That, too, needs to be defined. Otherwise, we're giving a
free pass to people who use our bureaucracy against other members to
force confrontation.

I don't mean to nitpick; it's just stuff that I've seen in action, where
well-meaning standards of conduct are perverted to suit agendas. Every
community will run into that monster sooner or later, so I figure it's
better to be explicit than to expect others to intuitively understand
what we mean.

Comrel? Council? Trustees?

> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:18 PM, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:41:11PM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> > > The current bylaws are sufficient.
> > >
> > > Threats should not be tolerated. It seems like right now, all it takes
> > are
> > > the trustees to vote on it to remove that member. Your addition leaves it
> > > up to interpretation whether specified events fit the criteria you
> > define,
> > > which just make it more confusing than a simple vote of trustees in the
> > > first place.
> >
> > All of our policies are written in a natural language, which leaves them
> > open to interpretation by a human. How would you improve the wording of
> > the criteria?
> >
> > >
> > > So I don't think any of this helps; and with the videos at the end, it
> > just
> > > kind of seems paranoid.
> >
> > The intent was to show that the phenomenon is real and poses a threat to
> > us. The all-caps warning was being respectful of the circumstances that
> > people may be reading the list under. I thought I put enough thought and
> > effort into my recommendation to not be written off and disregarded as
> > paranoid. In an age where information is gathered en masse and
> > often misused against people, I hardly consider it paranoid to be
> > concerned about the safety of our members.
> >
> > Which bylaw(s) already cover legal threats? 4.9 is a bylaw with broad,
> > general language that is also subject to interpretation. Our Code of
> > Conduct does not cover this behavior, either. The closest thing is
> > "mean-spirited", which is actually *less* specific than what I outlined.
> >
> > It comes down to this: these events *can* and *do* happen, and some of
> > our members *have* threatened legal action in response to situations
> > they didn't like. There is no denying any of that. What will Gentoo do
> > about it when it's one of our own who loses their job or their life at
> > the hands of an angry person with a phone?  Should we stand by and wait
> > until damage is done before acting?  I think we can do better than that.
> >
> > As mentioned in my prior mail, it's a draft. Patches welcome.
> > >
> > > -Daniel
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:50 PM, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >[snip]
> > > >
> >

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9119 bytes --]

zlg, I agree somewhat, but I think that people shouldn't get a 'free pass'
to engage in unprofessional behavior just because it's a volunteer project.
I think that there is a general understanding that in a 'professional'
environment, you want to try to be polite and get along with others. I
think that this is the underlying principle. You are not free to interact
with everyone as you see fit -- the primary purpose of Gentoo communication
infrastructure is to create a welcoming and constructive environment for
those who participate in it.

I think it would be pretty easy to come up with a few bullet points to
clarify how strict "professional" is. It is not my decision to make, but
I'd suggest maybe something like the following:

* Be sensitive to the fact that people come from other cultures and may
have other values than you do. If engaging in personal conversation, it is
very possible that someone else will find an idea or activity you have as
being offensive -- especially when it comes to politics, religion, and
other 'hot button' issues -- things you may feel are perfectly appropriate.
In these instances, we will ask that you refrain from discussing these
personal ideas or activities on gentoo infrastructure (forums, IRC, mailing
lists, etc.) and move them to non-Gentoo channels, as the priority for
Gentoo is to have a welcoming environment for all people wanting to discuss
issues related to Gentoo, first and foremost. Purposely engaging in
off-topic 'hot-button' discussion on Gentoo infrastructure is considered
trolling and will result in your access to Gentoo infrastructure being
limited or removed.

* Different cultures have different expectations when it comes to the use
of profanity, and good-natured "ribbing" (teasing.) What is acceptable is
highly dependent on the specific individuals included in the conversation
(both active and passive participants.) We admit that it can be difficult
to determine what is "OK" and "not OK" in conversations. Here are some
guidelines. We will insist that you do not use profanity directed towards
an individual or group. if you are sensitive to profanity, be aware that
there are those on our project who will say a 'bad' word from time-to-time.
If you are saying something sarcastically, use a smiley-face or other emoji
to indicate that. Others will require adjustment of their choice of words.
If you have offended someone with your words, we ask that you apologize and
make amends. We also ask that those offended forgive and move on, with the
understanding that your personal moral standards may not be shared by
everyone. Remember that it is everyone's responsibility to try to make
people feel welcome here, and the primary goal is not to allow you to act
however you want but to create a supportive environment for Gentoo-related
discussion and work.

Something like that, I think, could be useful.

-Daniel


On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 3:43 PM, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 02:34:33PM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> > I think the "rules" as it stands give the trustees the ability to remove
> > any member that they feel is disruptive or not good for the project. They
> > don't need to provide a reason or justification. It is at their
> discretion.
> > So disruptive people can be removed. If I am misunderstanding this, let
> me
> > know.
> >
> > I understand what you are getting at though, but to make it sound better
> I
> > would take a positive stance, and list expectations in the Code of
> Conduct.
> > I'll will give you an example:
> >
> > "Foundation members are expected to act in good faith to cooperate with
> > others and resolve problems constructively, including the use of our
> > official channels for dispute resolution. The Foundation reserves the
> right
> > to remove anyone's membership who they feel is being disruptive to the
> > project or not acting in the spirit of cooperation, and depending on the
> > severity of the behavior, this may not even include a warning. Therefore,
> > it is important that as a Foundation member that you are aware of this.
> We
> > expect that you will not only cooperate but act in a way that models
> > professionalism and respect -- that is our standard."
> >
> > That's a friendly warning, and if people read it, I think they will feel
> > "Cool - the Foundation is trying to maintain a professional environment.
> I
> > can get behind that. And I know that they expect that from me and if I
> > deviate from that, I know what the consequences might be." Then I really
> > don't feel like the Trustees have any hoops they need to jump through to
> > remove people -- they can exercise their rights as described in the
> bylaws.
> >
> > -Daniel
>
> That's something I can get behind, in spirit. Perhaps examples could aid
> understanding.
>
> I like the angle of better establishing our expectations, but maybe we
> could be a little more precise so there's less room for interpretation.
> (it seems to be a shared goal) I understand that we vote Council and
> Trustees in to do this interpretation for us, but who among us can nail
> down what it means to act "professional"? It's a loaded term that means
> different things to different people and even different cultures. I've
> seen too many instances of people accused of "unprofessional behavior"
> and ignored due to said judgment, with no supporting reasoning or even a
> working definition of the phrase. I would argue that accusations of
> unprofessionalism without supporting reasoning is unprofessional in
> itself, but others may disagree. If we can't establish a shared
> understanding, the text you laid out may not be as effective as we hope.
>
> We must also consider that what we do is volunteer work rather than
> work-for-hire. In that context, none of us are professionals unless a
> company pays us to work on Gentoo. If we can unpack "professional", we
> could likely describe the conduct we're after without resorting to such
> an unclear umbrella term.
>
> Additionally, someone could use official conflict resolution
> channels to overwhelm Comrel or whoever is handling the situation, and
> try to force engagement with their target using the guise of
> "cooperation". That, too, needs to be defined. Otherwise, we're giving a
> free pass to people who use our bureaucracy against other members to
> force confrontation.
>
> I don't mean to nitpick; it's just stuff that I've seen in action, where
> well-meaning standards of conduct are perverted to suit agendas. Every
> community will run into that monster sooner or later, so I figure it's
> better to be explicit than to expect others to intuitively understand
> what we mean.
>
> Comrel? Council? Trustees?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:18 PM, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:41:11PM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> > > > The current bylaws are sufficient.
> > > >
> > > > Threats should not be tolerated. It seems like right now, all it
> takes
> > > are
> > > > the trustees to vote on it to remove that member. Your addition
> leaves it
> > > > up to interpretation whether specified events fit the criteria you
> > > define,
> > > > which just make it more confusing than a simple vote of trustees in
> the
> > > > first place.
> > >
> > > All of our policies are written in a natural language, which leaves
> them
> > > open to interpretation by a human. How would you improve the wording of
> > > the criteria?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So I don't think any of this helps; and with the videos at the end,
> it
> > > just
> > > > kind of seems paranoid.
> > >
> > > The intent was to show that the phenomenon is real and poses a threat
> to
> > > us. The all-caps warning was being respectful of the circumstances that
> > > people may be reading the list under. I thought I put enough thought
> and
> > > effort into my recommendation to not be written off and disregarded as
> > > paranoid. In an age where information is gathered en masse and
> > > often misused against people, I hardly consider it paranoid to be
> > > concerned about the safety of our members.
> > >
> > > Which bylaw(s) already cover legal threats? 4.9 is a bylaw with broad,
> > > general language that is also subject to interpretation. Our Code of
> > > Conduct does not cover this behavior, either. The closest thing is
> > > "mean-spirited", which is actually *less* specific than what I
> outlined.
> > >
> > > It comes down to this: these events *can* and *do* happen, and some of
> > > our members *have* threatened legal action in response to situations
> > > they didn't like. There is no denying any of that. What will Gentoo do
> > > about it when it's one of our own who loses their job or their life at
> > > the hands of an angry person with a phone?  Should we stand by and wait
> > > until damage is done before acting?  I think we can do better than
> that.
> > >
> > > As mentioned in my prior mail, it's a draft. Patches welcome.
> > > >
> > > > -Daniel
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:50 PM, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >[snip]
> > > > >
> > >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 11172 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3453 bytes --]

On 08/02/18 23:04, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> zlg, I agree somewhat, but I think that people shouldn't get a 'free
> pass' to engage in unprofessional behavior just because it's a
> volunteer project. I think that there is a general understanding that
> in a 'professional' environment, you want to try to be polite and get
> along with others. I think that this is the underlying principle. You
> are not free to interact with everyone as you see fit -- the primary
> purpose of Gentoo communication infrastructure is to create a
> welcoming and constructive environment for those who participate in it.
>
> I think it would be pretty easy to come up with a few bullet points to
> clarify how strict "professional" is. It is not my decision to make,
> but I'd suggest maybe something like the following:
>
> * Be sensitive to the fact that people come from other cultures and
> may have other values than you do. If engaging in personal
> conversation, it is very possible that someone else will find an idea
> or activity you have as being offensive -- especially when it comes to
> politics, religion, and other 'hot button' issues -- things you may
> feel are perfectly appropriate. In these instances, we will ask that
> you refrain from discussing these personal ideas or activities on
> gentoo infrastructure (forums, IRC, mailing lists, etc.) and move them
> to non-Gentoo channels, as the priority for Gentoo is to have a
> welcoming environment for all people wanting to discuss issues related
> to Gentoo, first and foremost. Purposely engaging in off-topic
> 'hot-button' discussion on Gentoo infrastructure is considered
> trolling and will result in your access to Gentoo infrastructure being
> limited or removed.
>
> * Different cultures have different expectations when it comes to the
> use of profanity, and good-natured "ribbing" (teasing.) What is
> acceptable is highly dependent on the specific individuals included in
> the conversation (both active and passive participants.) We admit that
> it can be difficult to determine what is "OK" and "not OK" in
> conversations. Here are some guidelines. We will insist that you do
> not use profanity directed towards an individual or group. if you are
> sensitive to profanity, be aware that there are those on our project
> who will say a 'bad' word from time-to-time. If you are saying
> something sarcastically, use a smiley-face or other emoji to indicate
> that. Others will require adjustment of their choice of words. If you
> have offended someone with your words, we ask that you apologize and
> make amends. We also ask that those offended forgive and move on, with
> the understanding that your personal moral standards may not be shared
> by everyone. Remember that it is everyone's responsibility to try to
> make people feel welcome here, and the primary goal is not to allow
> you to act however you want but to create a supportive environment for
> Gentoo-related discussion and work.
>
> Something like that, I think, could be useful.
>
> -Daniel
>
>
+1

I think having [worked?!] examples provides people with a good
contextual background for establishing a fairly consistent baseline
standard for all interactions.
ie. something like "do this, will result in this, do This and This is
likely to happen"

And then enforce it .. clearly and consistently .. you win trust and
respect this way.

Michael.

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4941 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1134 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, 8. Februar 2018, 23:43:29 CET schrieb zlg:
> I understand that we vote Council and
> Trustees in to do this interpretation for us, but who among us can nail
> down what it means to act "professional"? It's a loaded term that means
> different things to different people and even different cultures. I've
> seen too many instances of people accused of "unprofessional behavior"
> and ignored due to said judgment, with no supporting reasoning or even a
> working definition of the phrase.

Precisely.

Given that part of our intended audience is geeks, and part of our intention 
is to attract fresh talent, I'd say it would be fully professional of us to 
fill a conference booth with cool and crazy, sci-fi / "Inspector Gadget" like 
Gentoo related stuff. (Has anyone ever tried installing Gentoo on a Dalek?)

That, however, is exactly the opposite of another understanding of 
professional, which intends to attract seasoned system administrators or 
company representatives.


-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 806 bytes --]

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
wrote:
>
>
> That, however, is exactly the opposite of another understanding of
> professional, which intends to attract seasoned system administrators or
> company representatives.


"Professional" is more defined by its opposite, "unprofessional". Maybe
there is more consensus around that word. In a professional environment,
people make an effort to be polite, friendly, cooperative. There are
consequences for being disruptive, abusive, rude. Likewise, in Gentoo, we
should have the same. Maybe not as strict -- but a general understanding
that you are part of a community and expected to contribute positively to
the community -- not just positive technical work, but make a positive
contribution as a HUMAN BEING.

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1172 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1052 bytes --]

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org> wrote:
>
>
> "Professional" is more defined by its opposite, "unprofessional". Maybe
> there is more consensus around that word. In a professional environment,
> people make an effort to be polite, friendly, cooperative. There are
> consequences for being disruptive, abusive, rude. Likewise, in Gentoo, we
> should have the same. Maybe not as strict -- but a general understanding
> that you are part of a community and expected to contribute positively to
> the community -- not just positive technical work, but make a positive
> contribution as a HUMAN BEING.
>

And I will reply to my own post, and say that it is this friendly,
cooperative, supportive behavior that quite a few Gentoo Developers just do
naturally, but some may go "What!?! Oh, I am expected to actually be
pleasant and positively represent Gentoo in the community!?!? Fuck! I just
wanted to work on <insert project here> and be an ass 99% of the time."
Let's get the message out that this is not OK.

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1539 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1431 bytes --]

Am Samstag, 10. Februar 2018, 23:36:06 CET schrieb Daniel Robbins:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org> wrote:
> > "Professional" is more defined by its opposite, "unprofessional". Maybe
> > there is more consensus around that word. In a professional environment,
> > people make an effort to be polite, friendly, cooperative. There are
> > consequences for being disruptive, abusive, rude. Likewise, in Gentoo, we
> > should have the same. Maybe not as strict -- but a general understanding
> > that you are part of a community and expected to contribute positively to
> > the community -- not just positive technical work, but make a positive
> > contribution as a HUMAN BEING.
> 
> And I will reply to my own post, and say that it is this friendly,
> cooperative, supportive behavior that quite a few Gentoo Developers just do
> naturally, but some may go "What!?! Oh, I am expected to actually be
> pleasant and positively represent Gentoo in the community!?!? Fuck! I just
> wanted to work on <insert project here> and be an ass 99% of the time."
> Let's get the message out that this is not OK.

No need to discuss that, I think we fully agree on that.

(Unless you really, really want to have long e-mail debates with William L. 
Thompson Jr. ...)

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Michał Górny]

W dniu sob, 10.02.2018 o godzinie 15∶31 -0700, użytkownik Daniel Robbins
napisał:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > That, however, is exactly the opposite of another understanding of
> > professional, which intends to attract seasoned system administrators or
> > company representatives.
> 
> 
> "Professional" is more defined by its opposite, "unprofessional". Maybe
> there is more consensus around that word. In a professional environment,
> people make an effort to be polite, friendly, cooperative. There are
> consequences for being disruptive, abusive, rude. Likewise, in Gentoo, we
> should have the same. Maybe not as strict -- but a general understanding
> that you are part of a community and expected to contribute positively to
> the community -- not just positive technical work, but make a positive
> contribution as a HUMAN BEING.
> 

I think the key thing in behaving 'professional' is being able to put
your private differences and/or conflicts aside, and work with other
developers as the situation demands it.

The the contrary, examples of 'unprofessional' behavior would include
actions such as rudely rejecting requests from a particular developer
[1], or escalating personal issues to commit messages [2].

[1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/627592#c1
[2]:https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=f411e279bcad67780663c7973f0d021da4485159

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2152 bytes --]

On 18-02-10 23:57:02, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu sob, 10.02.2018 o godzinie 15∶31 -0700, użytkownik Daniel Robbins
> napisał:
> > On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > That, however, is exactly the opposite of another understanding of
> > > professional, which intends to attract seasoned system administrators or
> > > company representatives.
> > 
> > 
> > "Professional" is more defined by its opposite, "unprofessional". Maybe
> > there is more consensus around that word. In a professional environment,
> > people make an effort to be polite, friendly, cooperative. There are
> > consequences for being disruptive, abusive, rude. Likewise, in Gentoo, we
> > should have the same. Maybe not as strict -- but a general understanding
> > that you are part of a community and expected to contribute positively to
> > the community -- not just positive technical work, but make a positive
> > contribution as a HUMAN BEING.
> > 
> 
> I think the key thing in behaving 'professional' is being able to put
> your private differences and/or conflicts aside, and work with other
> developers as the situation demands it.
> 
> The the contrary, examples of 'unprofessional' behavior would include
> actions such as rudely rejecting requests from a particular developer
> [1], or escalating personal issues to commit messages [2].
> 
> [1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/627592#c1
> [2]:https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=f411e279bcad67780663c7973f0d021da4485159
> 

I think it's both.  You need to act professionally (putting aside
differences, etc), AND you need to be disruptive, abusive, rude (at the
minimum), at best you should also be polite, friendly, cooperative.  The
reason I say both are needed is because it's easy to act professional
but still be abusive (a coworker going over every commit you make with a
fine toothed comb for instance).  On the other hand it's also possible
to be friendly without being professional about things (a coworker not
being focused on work).

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 770 bytes --]

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

>
> The the contrary, examples of 'unprofessional' behavior would include
> actions such as rudely rejecting requests from a particular developer
> [1], or escalating personal issues to commit messages [2].
>
> [1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/627592#c1
> [2]:https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=
> f411e279bcad67780663c7973f0d021da4485159


Wow -- another person on the Gentoo project was rude. Let's stop pointing
fingers, everyone. This isn't productive. Just get some good sleep, wake up
tomorrow, realize that we all have the capability of being assholes, and be
so sick of asshole behavior that we vow to try our best to not be assholes
to others!

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1356 bytes --]