From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KTva8-00031w-Ja for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:26:52 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 79D06E006E; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D46E006E for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C64E672BD for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:26:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.986 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.986 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.546, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2XfMEFvoEM24 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:26:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3919E66C9B for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:26:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KTvZn-00082Z-ST for gentoo-project@gentoo.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:26:32 +0000 Received: from 91.85.186.135 ([91.85.186.135]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:26:31 +0000 Received: from slong by 91.85.186.135 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:26:31 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: User Relations authority Followup-To: gmane.linux.gentoo.council Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:24:45 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1215780445.12648.377.camel@liasis.inforead.com> <1215786125.2915.1@spike> <20080814092852.GB6477@comet> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.85.186.135 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.9 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 7978439b-f7fd-4a74-a085-c3a578fe50c7 X-Archives-Hash: f6ed1558907f877084a60e4e7be13aad Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 15:21 Fri 11 Jul , Roy Bamford wrote: >> - From memory, the CoC was not intended to change *rels authority or >> scope of action in any way at all. Hmm, pro-active moderation of dev m-l was definitely a change in scope imo. >> It was intended to document some >> behaviours that anyone at all could use as a reference to remind other >> participants in a medium that they we not behaving as other users had a >> right to expect. I recall it was based on some of the concepts behind >> freenodes catalyst idea. >> That's a good thing to have, and indeed the message was given at the time that this was stuff that others should seek to help with, in the same way as everyone should try and file bugs or help new users. However the whole point of the CoC as a new document was to give the proctors a mandate (and it definitely took long enough to achieve the consensus that much more proactive moderation was needed.) >> See dberkholzs' earlier ideas on CoC enforcement - anyone can do it. >> Yeah, just like anyone can become a dev, or write a kernel.. It takes skill and experience (both of the group and of tricky situations) to moderate effectively. The forum mods are the examplar within Gentoo imo. >> There was no statute of limitations implied with the creation of the >> CoC. While the CoC was being drafted, it was recognised that many CoC >> breaches come from anger/emotion/misunderstandings and their writers >> not sleeping on a post before they make it. >> It was also recognised that *rel take in comparison to these >> outbursts, a long time to act. The Proctors was created at the same >> time as the CoC as a rapid reaction group to deal with rapidly >> developing situations and calm things down, leaving *rel to deal with >> the persistent offenders in slower time as they always had done. >> >> In short, the publishing of the CoC changed nothing, it only documented >> something that had always been implied previously. >> I disagree as stated above. The CoC was based on the existing principles of the Gentoo community, so perhaps in legal terms it could be argued to be the same thing. In spirit, and in authority over all participants on all Gentoo media, it was very different. >> Note that the Forums mods and #gentoo channel ops had been enforcing >> the standards in the CoC long before it was written. It follows that >> the CoC is just documenting a part of what had been Gentoos' common >> law. Yeah, for the forums and irc (and I note that #gentoo-dev does not exactly live up to the standard of #gentoo wrt professionalism. Focus fair enough, everyone needs to talk off-topic, but rank stupidity and power-games?) but not for the m-l, so again a change in scope.