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 D7FFD139085 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2DD7721C180; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 01FD021C17C for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:35:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix, from userid 2127) id E3871341026; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:35:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBEF6340FC1 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:35:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:35:11 +0000 (UTC) From: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal In-Reply-To: <20170116121640.0c8ac7cd@wim.fritz.box> Message-ID: References: <20170115195209.70d3a748.mgorny@gentoo.org> <20170116121640.0c8ac7cd@wim.fritz.box> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) 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 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Archives-Salt: 9d161707-acd3-437d-bcc0-526a33ca61d2 X-Archives-Hash: 95f0abff0f835769dec9ea43be5d6ea8 On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:25:34 +0000 (UTC) > "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" wrote: > >> The general rule is that you appeal an irc ban to the team >> responsible for the irc channel (#gentoo-ops for #gentoo, ComRel for >> #gentoo-dev and individual project teams for #gentoo-* channels). >> If an appeal of the team decision is needed, it should be either >> directed to the Gentoo Freenode Group Contacts > > #gentoo is currently operated under the assumption that appeals go to > ComRel. Users who appeal their ban to the team get a review and as a > rule are advised to contact ComRel if they want to appeal the team > decision. The #gentoo ops team has never used Gentoo Freenode Group > Contacts for appealing #gentoo user bans, so this is a bit novel to > me. > > Gentoo Freenode Group Contacts is a (team of?) contacts that represent > Gentoo to Freenode. I don't see how or why they should be directly > involved in channel user management as they aren't now - Gentoo > Freenode Group Contacts simply manage official "#gentoo*" channels and > their ownership with the network. > >> (#gentoo-groupcontacts) the people that interact with Freenode and >> can in last resort close a channel or take ownershipt of it or ComRel >> if there was an abuse of power by a Developer. All actions by ComRel >> can be appelead for the Council. ComRel is involved here as this was >> done by UserRel before. > > OK, that's channel management, then, and not user-per-channel > management. If you manage a channel under the #gentoo moniker, then you > get to upkeep some minimal standards as you will be regarded as part of > the wider community. Fair enough. > > But we don't actually manage cross-channel user management at > all right now. Someone banned on #gentoo can go to #gentoo-chat for > support or ranting or whatever she is allowed to do there (or anywhere > else). This is a Good Thing. We don't need a higher body specifically > for that. Jeroen, thank you for clearing up the above. Gentoo group contacts can and have been reached in the past about channel management issues, not about individual bans. The group contacts would get involved in a case where a channel no longer has any active moderators or when someone argues the channel has gone "beserk". >> One thing you mention that might be worth, is having a way to make >> clear that a bugzilla account is "disabled". I don't think we should >> be explicit about an account being banned. > > "Disabled" is ambiguous. We currently appear to use "retired" for > developers on bugzilla. I think "inactive" might be a better > generic word for closed bugzilla accounts. I prefer "inactive" as well. Regards, Jorge