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 D6C9C1382C5 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 06:06:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C2BCE0E4F; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 06:06:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 181B7E0E47 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 06:06:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Shutting down the Off the Wall To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org, Ulrich Mueller Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_K._H=c3=bcttel?= References: <20201130164650.j46wjcxzethfn6qp@hydra> <5284753.ZASKD2KPVS@farino> <3e99a0f3-a801-3910-b626-baeaeac2b3a6@gentoo.org> <5ef78bc4-9547-f566-81a1-0eceb7f57714@gentoo.org> From: desultory Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 01:04:34 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 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 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7ffc2766-044e-4f02-a117-bff53e61b642 X-Archives-Hash: 1bd433f03e9ae1ecd8de3f09fd5d92cb On 12/05/20 05:36, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2020, desultory wrote: > >> On 12/04/20 07:45, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> Last time I checked, the forums (including OTW) were open for anyone >>> to register, which makes them public communication media. So the Code >>> of Conduct applies. > >> Aside form limited circumstances when registration is restricted, for >> instance due to flooding, they are open to register. However, under >> the current, council mandated configuration Off the Wall is not >> publicly readable without an account, unlike the mailing lists aside >> from core. > > So basically you say that OTW isn't a public forum, so the CoC doesn't > apply to it and nothing needs to change? > They are in point of fact less public than the lists, and your statements indicate that you consider the degree to which a medium is public to determine the degree to which a medium is subject to the CoC. Completely aside from the fact that moderation is deliberately lax in Off the Wall and moderation is further deliberately reliant upon problems being properly reported and that both have been true since well before the CoC was drafted. > I had really hoped that the moderators team would acknowledge that the > current state of affairs with OTW is unacceptable, and come up with some > plan of their own how to improve things. > I had hoped that council would acknowledge when it was working outside of its competence and recognize that those doing the work would understand that work better than those merely making a show of offense that something that they make little, if any, use of contains a section which they do not read which contains things which they would not elect to read. You, and other council members, deem the current state of Off the Wall "unacceptable", while carefully avoiding how it is so beyond the mere fact that it contains material which is not topical to technical support of Gentoo or otherwise necessarily directly associated with Gentoo; all while brushing off that other mediums contain such content without having a suitable place (or indeed mechanism) to separate it from that which is directly related to Gentoo. Instead, we are apparently to engage in a purity spiral, but only on the forums because there are mechanisms to enforce one there, regardless of the damage that would result (if you need that explained, read up on what a purity spiral is before attempting to claim that they are anything other than destructive). As I pointed out in the discussion on core, there is no evidently feasible change which would quell all complaints, and there has been no mention of some acceptable threshold of complaints which would satisfy the council (though given the origin of this farce, it can be inferred to be zero). Yet you claim to expect a proposal to come forth to satisfy concerns which, as so far stated, are fairly summarized as "I don't use it. I am willfully ignorant of it. I don't like it. Make it go away." > If neither of these two things are going to happen, then it won't be > difficult to predict that the Council will close down OTW sooner or > later. > Considering that the previous council vote explicitly called for discussion on the lists, which never took place, and that this latest farce is directly due to the manner in which the council has taken action, ongoing gross incompetence on the part of the council is hardly unexpected. The only council member to clearly state their preference to not close Off the Wall stated that they wanted the CoC enforced those violating it to be banned, and even they only got half way there: such cases need to be reported to forum moderators, not claimed by council to declare its collective indigence at while it spends a month complaining that nothing is being done because it claimed the role while avoiding the actions which that role implies. Instead, we have this farce. >> How, exactly? The council acts as the final level of appeal (short of >> literally suing for redress over a CoC enforcement action) yet >> multiple council members have been posting in a manner which is >> directly counter to the CoC. If posting in a manner directly counter >> to the CoC is acceptable behavior to those ultimately tasked with >> enforcing it, then the CoC is moot at best. If the CoC is moot then >> there is no functioning policy to enforce. If there is no functioning >> policy, there is no policy to breach. As such, either the council as a >> whole and its members individually need to start treating the CoC as a >> functioning and enforceable policy, not least by abiding by it, or the >> council as a whole and its members individually need to admit that it >> is indeed as it has been treated by them: a defunct policy. > > Such unproven allegations aren't helpful. If I should have violated the > CoC in any ML posting, then please point out that concrete posting or > report me to ComRel. > This entire farce is unhelpful, yet it continues to go on. Further, there is no concept of "proven allegation" in regard to the CoC, even in cases where a developer would be completely expelled from the project there is no reference to proving any "allegations". However, critically reading the CoC and the discussions in question should suffice to demonstrate repeated conflict between the two. As for you specifically, your public posts have been less overt than certain of your posts on core or those of other council members both on core and in public, though distinct elements remain present. As for making a ComRel complaint they, like proctors, have openly stated that they prefer inaction regardless of whether a formal complaint is made (though at least ComRel specified that they they did so in less overt cases, even if their actions since have not exactly carried through on that). Between that declaration on their part and the fact that I, ComRel, and the council are all aware that any appeals would go to the council, it hardly seems worth the waste of time. > Ulrich >