FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-19-2011, 04:25 PM
Robyn Bergeron
 
Default Seeking feedback and/or approval on CWG working group drafts

Greetings,

The CWG has been taking into account feedback on the drafts we
previously posted. The group is now seeking any further feedback
and/or approval.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/Code_of_Conduct_Draft
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement

A ticket has also been filed with the board to track this (ie: make
sure it gets discussed in an upcoming board meeting).
https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/101

-Robyn
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 04-19-2011, 04:46 PM
"Jared K. Smith"
 
Default Seeking feedback and/or approval on CWG working group drafts

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Robyn Bergeron
<robyn.bergeron@gmail.com> wrote:
> The CWG has been taking into account feedback on the drafts we
> previously posted. *The group is now seeking any further feedback
> and/or approval.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/Code_of_Conduct_Draft
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement

Awesome, I'll read over these this afternoon.

> A ticket has also been filed with the board to track this (ie: make
> sure it gets discussed in an upcoming board meeting).
> https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/101

Thanks Robyn!

--
Jared Smith
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 04-21-2011, 10:57 PM
inode0
 
Default Seeking feedback and/or approval on CWG working group drafts

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Robyn Bergeron
<robyn.bergeron@gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> The CWG has been taking into account feedback on the drafts we
> previously posted. *The group is now seeking any further feedback
> and/or approval.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/Code_of_Conduct_Draft

This reads like a long-winded "be nice" which is probably what it is
intended to be I guess.

I don't know if it is my imagination or not but things seem to have
substantially improved lately.

> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement

While I find the Code of Conduct draft innocuous I don't feel the same
way about the Enforcement draft. While I am mostly fine with the first
three sections in this document I strongly dislike the blanket grant
of power to punish vague offenses to the CWG.

"Violations of the Code of Conduct may be resolved by suggestions for
avoiding the problem in the future up to permanent exclusion from the
project, and anything in-between."

I know the intentions here are good and there is a desire to not try
to enumerate things since everything can't be enumerated but permanent
expulsion from the project for any action that the CWG deems a
violation of the Code of Conduct is a little too broad isn't it? I
understand that there is no intention to use that power except in
really extreme cases but that isn't specified here and honestly I
wouldn't want expulsion to be a delegated power. I would much prefer
to see it require an FPL+unanimous Board decision.

John
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 04-21-2011, 11:19 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default Seeking feedback and/or approval on CWG working group drafts

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 16:57, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Robyn Bergeron
> <robyn.bergeron@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> The CWG has been taking into account feedback on the drafts we
>> previously posted. *The group is now seeking any further feedback
>> and/or approval.
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/Code_of_Conduct_Draft
>
> This reads like a long-winded "be nice" which is probably what it is
> intended to be I guess.
>
> I don't know if it is my imagination or not but things seem to have
> substantially improved lately.

Things are always nicer about this time of year. The release isn't
done yet and so people are concentrating on those parts. However 3
weeks to 2 months after a release the dramaz will most likely start up
again.

>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement
>
> While I find the Code of Conduct draft innocuous I don't feel the same
> way about the Enforcement draft. While I am mostly fine with the first
> three sections in this document I strongly dislike the blanket grant
> of power to punish vague offenses to the CWG.
>
> "Violations of the Code of Conduct may be resolved by suggestions for
> avoiding the problem in the future up to permanent exclusion from the
> project, and anything in-between."
>
> I know the intentions here are good and there is a desire to not try
> to enumerate things since everything can't be enumerated but permanent
> expulsion from the project for any action that the CWG deems a
> violation of the Code of Conduct is a little too broad isn't it? I
> understand that there is no intention to use that power except in
> really extreme cases but that isn't specified here and honestly I
> wouldn't want expulsion to be a delegated power. I would much prefer
> to see it require an FPL+unanimous Board decision.

The last sentence covers that:

The final decision takes place with the Fedora Board, or the long term
delegate of their choosing.

The one problem with wording unanimous requirements is that in small
communities everyone knows everyone and has some sort of "history". I
have seen where because unanimous was required but one or two people
on a board had to recuse themselves from the decision, the criteria of
unanimity could never be reached. It is at this point in geeks trying
to be lawyers that I usually claw out my left eye and go find a quiet
place.



--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 04-21-2011, 11:30 PM
inode0
 
Default Seeking feedback and/or approval on CWG working group drafts

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 16:57, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Violations of the Code of Conduct may be resolved by suggestions for
>> avoiding the problem in the future up to permanent exclusion from the
>> project, and anything in-between."
>>
>> I know the intentions here are good and there is a desire to not try
>> to enumerate things since everything can't be enumerated but permanent
>> expulsion from the project for any action that the CWG deems a
>> violation of the Code of Conduct is a little too broad isn't it? I
>> understand that there is no intention to use that power except in
>> really extreme cases but that isn't specified here and honestly I
>> wouldn't want expulsion to be a delegated power. I would much prefer
>> to see it require an FPL+unanimous Board decision.
>
> The last sentence covers that:
>
> The final decision takes place with the Fedora Board, or the long term
> delegate of their choosing.

That sentence is part of my objection to this draft. I don't want the
board to delegate the power to expel people for vague unspecified
offenses to another person or body. I want the board to belly up to it
if they really feel it is necessary and do the dirty work themselves
to be blunt about it. That will give me confidence that the offense
really rises to a very high level. What three people on some appointed
committee decide doesn't give me the same confidence for example.

> The one problem with wording unanimous requirements is that in small
> communities everyone knows everyone and has some sort of "history". I
> have seen where because unanimous was required but one or two people
> on a board had to recuse themselves from the decision, the criteria of
> unanimity could never be reached. It is at this point in geeks trying
> to be lawyers that I usually claw out my left eye and go find a quiet
> place.

I don't view that as a problem when it comes to permanent expulsion
from the project. If you can't convince the FPL and the entire board
then I think that penalty is too severe.

But I see your point in general.

John
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 04-22-2011, 12:25 AM
Jon Stanley
 
Default Seeking feedback and/or approval on CWG working group drafts

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:30 PM, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:

> That sentence is part of my objection to this draft. I don't want the
> board to delegate the power to expel people for vague unspecified
> offenses to another person or body. I want the board to belly up to it
> if they really feel it is necessary and do the dirty work themselves
> to be blunt about it. That will give me confidence that the offense
> really rises to a very high level. What three people on some appointed
> committee decide doesn't give me the same confidence for example.

That's interesting that you say that. The original charter of the CWG
was to come up with these documents, which they did, and then the
further need for them and/or composition would be evaluated. I don't
think that the CWG as it currently exists ever expected that they'd be
the ones charged with enforcing these documents (and someone can
correct me if I'm sorely mistaken)

That being said, the Board also is not the Fedora traffic cops, nor
the Fedora Gestapo, and we AFAIK have no desire to enter into that
business. The Board consists of 9 people, who cannot be everywhere
that there is to be all at once. The people closest to the item being
debated are the ones best fit to deal with it. Of course, when that
doesn't work there needs to be some sort of last resort body to deal
with it. If the proposal is that that is the Board is that body and
that power cannot be further delegated, that's certainly valid. Being
we don't expect this type of thing to come up very often (in talking
to a member of the KDE CWG, they've had something like 3 incidents
over the past several years, one of which did lead to the permanent
expulsion of the person in question).

> I don't view that as a problem when it comes to permanent expulsion
> from the project. If you can't convince the FPL and the entire board
> then I think that penalty is too severe.

The difficulty here is if the person has friends on the Board, etc.
This is not uncommon, and I'd like to see something like a 2/3
majority. I'm not sure *anything* should require the decision be
unanimous (although we do strive for that in everything we do, not
just matters related to individual contributors).
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 04-22-2011, 01:19 AM
inode0
 
Default Seeking feedback and/or approval on CWG working group drafts

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Jon Stanley <jonstanley@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:30 PM, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That sentence is part of my objection to this draft. I don't want the
>> board to delegate the power to expel people for vague unspecified
>> offenses to another person or body. I want the board to belly up to it
>> if they really feel it is necessary and do the dirty work themselves
>> to be blunt about it. That will give me confidence that the offense
>> really rises to a very high level. What three people on some appointed
>> committee decide doesn't give me the same confidence for example.
>
> That's interesting that you say that. The original charter of the CWG
> was to come up with these documents, which they did, and then the
> further need for them and/or composition would be evaluated. I don't
> think that the CWG as it currently exists ever expected that they'd be
> the ones charged with enforcing these documents (and someone can
> correct me if I'm sorely mistaken)

Right, I said "for example" because we don't have any idea who or how
such a death penalty case would be decided from this document. Just
that it would be either the board or someone it designates and that
the offense must be "not being nice" to some unspecified degree.

> That being said, the Board also is not the Fedora traffic cops, nor
> the Fedora Gestapo, and we AFAIK have no desire to enter into that
> business. The Board consists of 9 people, who cannot be everywhere
> that there is to be all at once. The people closest to the item being
> debated are the ones best fit to deal with it. Of course, when that
> doesn't work there needs to be some sort of last resort body to deal
> with it. If the proposal is that that is the Board is that body and
> that power cannot be further delegated, that's certainly valid. Being
> we don't expect this type of thing to come up very often (in talking
> to a member of the KDE CWG, they've had something like 3 incidents
> over the past several years, one of which did lead to the permanent
> expulsion of the person in question).

With all due respect asking the board to handle death penalty cases
isn't asking the board to be traffic cops. It is a show of respect to
the board that I trust them more than any other body to put personal
feelings aside for the good of the project. They more than anyone else
have that responsibility in my mind.

>> I don't view that as a problem when it comes to permanent expulsion
>> from the project. If you can't convince the FPL and the entire board
>> then I think that penalty is too severe.
>
> The difficulty here is if the person has friends on the Board, etc.
> This is not uncommon, and I'd like to see something like a 2/3
> majority. I'm not sure *anything* should require the decision be
> unanimous (although we do strive for that in everything we do, not
> just matters related to individual contributors).

This difficulty exists with any body. We all have friends. If we don't
require unanimity for the death penalty then I guess we just move the
bar to whether you have 3 or fewer friends or not. I would rather this
be a responsibility of the board to do what is right rather than
assuming the board will put friendships ahead of the good of the
project and leaving us with a popularity contest.

I rather suspect there would never need to be such a death penalty
case in real life anyway - a lesser expulsion would likely amount to
the same thing because who would want to come back after a 3 year
expulsion anyway? Ok, maybe the sort of person who would get expelled
would I guess, I don't know.

John
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 04-22-2011, 02:43 AM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default Seeking feedback and/or approval on CWG working group drafts

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 19:19, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:

> With all due respect asking the board to handle death penalty cases
> isn't asking the board to be traffic cops. It is a show of respect to
> the board that I trust them more than any other body to put personal
> feelings aside for the good of the project. They more than anyone else
> have that responsibility in my mind.


Death penalty is quite the loaded term. If the board says to Joe Bob
Contributor that they are no longer welcome at Fedora related events,
projects, mailing lists, etc. it is no where the same as we putting
him on a firing line and shooting him. Putting it in such terms does
nothing to further the conversation and just sets people's opinions in
stone before a conversation can be started.






--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 04-22-2011, 03:29 AM
inode0
 
Default Seeking feedback and/or approval on CWG working group drafts

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 19:19, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> With all due respect asking the board to handle death penalty cases
>> isn't asking the board to be traffic cops. It is a show of respect to
>> the board that I trust them more than any other body to put personal
>> feelings aside for the good of the project. They more than anyone else
>> have that responsibility in my mind.
>
> Death penalty is quite the loaded term. If the board says to Joe Bob
> Contributor that they are no longer welcome at Fedora related events,
> projects, mailing lists, etc. it is no where the same as we putting
> him on a firing line and shooting him. Putting it in such terms does
> nothing to further the conversation and just sets people's opinions in
> stone before a conversation can be started.

Did someone mention the Fedora Gestapo?

I am done trying to further this conversation and maybe I've even
changed my mind.

John
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 04-22-2011, 07:31 AM
"Christofer C. Bell"
 
Default Seeking feedback and/or approval on CWG working group drafts

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.com> wrote:


On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 19:19, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:



> With all due respect asking the board to handle death penalty cases

> isn't asking the board to be traffic cops. It is a show of respect to

> the board that I trust them more than any other body to put personal

> feelings aside for the good of the project. They more than anyone else

> have that responsibility in my mind.





Death penalty is quite the loaded term. If the board says to Joe Bob

Contributor that they are no longer welcome at Fedora related events,

projects, mailing lists, etc. it is no where the same as we putting

him on a firing line and shooting him.
In the context of the project, that's exactly what it is. *It's being fired. *Sure, you may keep in touch with some of your former coworkers outside of the office (note: this never happens), but in the context of the business, in the context of the company, you are dead, gone, you don't exist any longer.

*Putting it in such terms does

nothing to further the conversation and just sets people's opinions in

stone before a conversation can be started.
I have to disagree. *The terminology certainly hasn't influenced my opinion one way or the other. *I'm with John, if someone is going to be ejected from the project entirely, the board should be the authority doing it. *It's not something that should be delegated to others. *To continue the "at the office" analogy above, managers don't delegate laying people off to their team leaders. *They do it themselves. *As it should be.

*--
Chris




_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:18 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org