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 05-10-2011, 11:17 PM
Brian Pepple
 
Default Discussion regarding Community Working Group and/or Ombudsman

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:33 PM, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't really think without a more clearly defined set of
> responsibilities for such a group there can be much sensible
> discussion of its composition. You mention a mediation role but I
> could imagine the CWG taking on a broader function than just dispute
> mediation. One of keeping an eye on the overall health of the
> community and one of intervening in problem pockets before there is a
> big fuss that escalates out of control. One of taking action to help
> foster healthy communities as opposed to one of reacting to problems
> after the fact. Something to think about in addition to dispute
> mediation maybe?

When the CWG was formed, it given a one year term with the initial
goal of determining whether a COC/enforcement guidelines were needed,
and then afterwards work on helping to maintain a friendly and
welcoming community. Sadly, somewhere along line, the Board felt the
CWG wasn't need any longer and started discussing disbanding it.
Regardless, it would have been nice to have been invited to these
discussions, instead of finding out about them afterwards (which
frankly, doesn't inspire much confidence in me about how they will
handle COC enforcements in the future).

Later,
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org>

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B *CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 05-10-2011, 11:31 PM
"Jˇhann B. Gu­mundsson"
 
Default Discussion regarding Community Working Group and/or Ombudsman

On 05/10/2011 08:30 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> What would you like to see?

Group of people pointed or elected made up of equal or more from the
community as oppose to majority of those indviduals being employed by
single corporate entity which works completly in the open.

For example having the majority of that group or an single individual
pointed regardless on those individuals skillset, insight and neutrality
on Red Hat's payroll might be adding fuel to fire in somecases and form
sides and thus further divide the community as opposed to bringing the
community closer together and settle any disputes amongst people.

JBG
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 05-11-2011, 12:07 AM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default Discussion regarding Community Working Group and/or Ombudsman

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 17:17, Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:33 PM, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't really think without a more clearly defined set of
>> responsibilities for such a group there can be much sensible
>> discussion of its composition. You mention a mediation role but I
>> could imagine the CWG taking on a broader function than just dispute
>> mediation. One of keeping an eye on the overall health of the
>> community and one of intervening in problem pockets before there is a
>> big fuss that escalates out of control. One of taking action to help
>> foster healthy communities as opposed to one of reacting to problems
>> after the fact. Something to think about in addition to dispute
>> mediation maybe?
>
> When the CWG was formed, it given a one year term with the initial
> goal of determining whether a COC/enforcement guidelines were needed,
> and then afterwards work on helping to maintain a friendly and
> welcoming community. Sadly, somewhere along line, the Board felt the
> CWG wasn't need any longer and started discussing disbanding it.

Hmm I do not remember a 1 year term being set.. mainly because there
were several people who complained that we "the board" were either
abrogating our duties by setting up yet another layer of bureaucracy
or that the CWG would become the Fedora Board's Secret Police. Most of
the concerns voiced after the enforcement policy was published were
the same.

Because of this my understanding that the CWG was to make
recommendations on what the COC/enforcement should be, and the board
would then work from there to charter the recommendations into the
final working body.

That said, if a 1 year term and ongoing moderation was in the charter
and I missed it.. I will happily reset.

> Regardless, it would have been nice to have been invited to these
> discussions, instead of finding out about them afterwards (which
> frankly, doesn't inspire much confidence in me about how they will
> handle COC enforcements in the future).
>
> Later,
> /B
> --
> Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org>
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple
> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
> BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B *CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board



--
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 05-11-2011, 01:10 AM
Brian Pepple
 
Default Discussion regarding Community Working Group and/or Ombudsman

On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 18:07 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 17:17, Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >
> > When the CWG was formed, it given a one year term with the initial
> > goal of determining whether a COC/enforcement guidelines were needed,
> > and then afterwards work on helping to maintain a friendly and
> > welcoming community. Sadly, somewhere along line, the Board felt the
> > CWG wasn't need any longer and started discussing disbanding it.
>
> Hmm I do not remember a 1 year term being set.. mainly because there
> were several people who complained that we "the board" were either
> abrogating our duties by setting up yet another layer of bureaucracy
> or that the CWG would become the Fedora Board's Secret Police. Most of
> the concerns voiced after the enforcement policy was published were
> the same.
>
> Because of this my understanding that the CWG was to make
> recommendations on what the COC/enforcement should be, and the board
> would then work from there to charter the recommendations into the
> final working body.

Well, a quick Google search shows that the 10/26/10 Board summary states
that the CWG has a 1 year term. And frankly, it would have really been
nice to have known beforehand, that the CWG had this little support from
the Board because I would not have bothered wasting my time working on
this.

This is really just another example of why I feel the Board is the
*last* place enforcement decisions should be made. The group does well
with "Big Picture" ideas, but has a rather poor history of handling
detail-orientated decisions.

Later,
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org>

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 05-11-2011, 02:01 AM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default Discussion regarding Community Working Group and/or Ombudsman

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 19:10, Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 18:07 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 17:17, Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > When the CWG was formed, it given a one year term with the initial
>> > goal of determining whether a COC/enforcement guidelines were needed,
>> > and then afterwards work on helping to maintain a friendly and
>> > welcoming community. Sadly, somewhere along line, the Board felt the
>> > CWG wasn't need any longer and started discussing disbanding it.
>>
>> Hmm I do not remember a 1 year term being set.. mainly because there
>> were several people who complained that we "the board" were either
>> abrogating our duties by setting up yet another layer of bureaucracy
>> or that the CWG would become the Fedora Board's Secret Police. Most of
>> the concerns voiced after the enforcement policy was published were
>> the same.
>>
>> Because of this my understanding that the CWG was to make
>> recommendations on what the COC/enforcement should be, and the board
>> would then work from there to charter the recommendations into the
>> final working body.
>
> Well, a quick Google search shows that the 10/26/10 Board summary states
> that the CWG has a 1 year term. And frankly, it would have really been
> nice to have known beforehand, that the CWG had this little support from
> the Board because I would not have bothered wasting my time working on
> this.

You are reading a lot of emotional content into my statements that is
not meant to be there, and you seem to be reading my statements as
being that of the board. I am stating as myself what I thought the
events and arguments were and it is quite clear that I was wrong in
what was recorded.

1) If we said it was a 1 year term once the CWG was ratified, then it
is a 1 year term and any talk of disbandment, replacing, reforming etc
is out of place.

2) I am sorry that my memory is crap and I seem to have opened up
another crapstorm here. I won't be running for the board again and I
won't be asking to be appointed to it either.





--
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 05-11-2011, 02:05 AM
Brian Pepple
 
Default Discussion regarding Community Working Group and/or Ombudsman

On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 20:01 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> You are reading a lot of emotional content into my statements that is
> not meant to be there, and you seem to be reading my statements as
> being that of the board. I am stating as myself what I thought the
> events and arguments were and it is quite clear that I was wrong in
> what was recorded.
>
> 1) If we said it was a 1 year term once the CWG was ratified, then it
> is a 1 year term and any talk of disbandment, replacing, reforming etc
> is out of place.
>
> 2) I am sorry that my memory is crap and I seem to have opened up
> another crapstorm here. I won't be running for the board again and I
> won't be asking to be appointed to it either.

Sorry that my reply came off as seeming to blame you for my frustration
with how the Board has handled this. That wasn't my intent.

Again sorry,
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org>

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 05-11-2011, 02:56 AM
Buddhika Kurera
 
Default Discussion regarding Community Working Group and/or Ombudsman

Hello Folks,
I am considering the duration of the term.
Personally I feel 2 year term is really long and the effectiveness will be less.
What about 1 year term with*appointments*based on Fedora release (once six months).

like what we are doing with FAmSCo.
--
Regards,
Buddhike Chandradeepa KureraFedora Ambassador - Sri Lanka

_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 05-11-2011, 03:16 AM
David Nalley
 
Default Discussion regarding Community Working Group and/or Ombudsman

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jared K. Smith
<jsmith@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Now that the Fedora Board has formally accepted the documents prepared
> by the Community Working Group regarding a code of conduct and the
> enforcement of the code of conduct, I'd like to start a discussion
> regarding the longer-term role of the Community Working Group. *While
> the enforcement of the code of conduct (particularly in serious
> circumstances) should take place at the Board level, I think there's
> general agreement that it might be helpful to have a person or group
> dedicated to helping mediate conflicts and referring cases to the
> Fedora Board as necessary. *That group could be the CWG, an elected
> ombudsman, or something else.
>
> What would you like to see?
>

During our discussion today I was initially convinced that the idea of
a CWG/Ombudsman acting as mediator only was a good one. However now I
am beginning to question that. Our discussion today centered around
making this person(s)/group responsible only for mediation, and having
extremely limited or no enforcement capabilities. I think the reasons
for that were sound, but I am beginning to question the efficacy.

Effectively we'd be creating a paper tiger, with limited or no
authority to which we'd funnel a ton of complaints - I can't imagine
how demoralizing it would be to take all the complaints in the first
place, but then only to be able to offer suggestions would take an
incredible set of people, and I fear we'd burn them out very fast.

I notice that Gentoo has discontinued their ombudsman program (I sadly
can't find the original charter for the position with a quick google,
or the reason for discontinuation). In it's place they put a developer
relations council, any member of which may singly excommunicate a
member from the project permanently, with the only appeal being to the
full developer council. I don't think that is a direction Fedora
should go, but I do find it interesting.

I am very concerned that we not repeat something akin to the 'Hall
Monitors' issues. Specifically I am very worried that the Board (and I
am speaking for myself only) would second-guess any delegated body's
decisions if it became overly controversial. I guess I am also
skeptical of the number of problems that really need intervention. I
understand there to be flare ups from time to time, but I doubt a
formal mediator (or at least one past the channel ops or list
owner/moderator) is needed in most cases. If there really exists so
many serious problems as to need a dedicated mediator/team of
mediators, perhaps there are bigger problems to be dealt with than the
mediation process.

That said, I am sure the CWG has at least considered this possibility,
and I'd like to hear their thoughts. You've produced a CoC and
Enforcement draft, and have almost 1/2 of your originally chartered
time remaining, what are your plans going forward, what roles do you
envision being able or wanting to evolve into?
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 05-11-2011, 09:55 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Discussion regarding Community Working Group and/or Ombudsman

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:17:59PM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
>
> When the CWG was formed, it given a one year term with the initial
> goal of determining whether a COC/enforcement guidelines were needed,
> and then afterwards work on helping to maintain a friendly and
> welcoming community.

I'm sorry, I didn't due my due diligence before the meeting. The CWG was
chartered before I joined the Board and I should have looked into what was
docuemented at it's founding.

here's that document for those that are interested:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group

The charter is pretty clear that the Code of Conduct is just one aspect of
the Community Working Group's mission.

> Sadly, somewhere along line, the Board felt the
> CWG wasn't need any longer and started discussing disbanding it.

I was also on vacation for the previous couple of Board Meetings where
the first drafts of the Code of Conduct and Code of Conduct Enforcement
documents were discussed.

When comparing previous drafts to the current one and the discussion on FAB
that lead to the changes, I see that there is a pattern of Board members
thinking that the Community Working Group was founded to create the Code of
Conduct. As stated earlier, this seems to be a mistaken impression.

At the last Board Meeting it seemed that the Board members were thinking
that the Community Working Group had fulfilled the task (singular) that it
was chartered for which left up in the air what it wanted to do next. I did
not get the impression that anyone on the Board wanted to disband the
Community Working Group because they didn't want it to continue existing,
they were just confused as to what purpose it wanted to fill once the Code
of Conduct was written.


> Regardless, it would have been nice to have been invited to these
> discussions, instead of finding out about them afterwards (which
> frankly, doesn't inspire much confidence in me about how they will
> handle COC enforcements in the future).
>
If there were other discussions about disbanding the Community Working Group
above what's available in the public record, I don't think I have more
information than you do. The last phone meeting seemed to just be
a misunderstanding of what the Community Working Group charter had stated
and where the Community Working Group members themselves wanted to take
things next.

On that note, the Board had some ideas about directions the Community Working
Group could take based solely on the Code of Conduct (not on the charter).
However, they weren't sure if the CWG was interested in doing any of those
things or if they were solely interested in the Code of Conduct.

From the vehemence with which you point to the charter, it seems apparent
that the Community Working Group wants to continue to do more work. Do you
have ideas that you want to throw out there of roles and tasks that the CWG
wants to fill? I'll add the Board's couple ideas as a reply to David
Nalley's email and you can read that before or after giving some of your own
thoughts.

-Toshio
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 05-11-2011, 10:50 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Discussion regarding Community Working Group and/or Ombudsman

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:16:33PM -0400, David Nalley wrote:
> During our discussion today I was initially convinced that the idea of
> a CWG/Ombudsman acting as mediator only was a good one. However now I
> am beginning to question that. Our discussion today centered around
> making this person(s)/group responsible only for mediation, and having
> extremely limited or no enforcement capabilities. I think the reasons
> for that were sound, but I am beginning to question the efficacy.
>
> Effectively we'd be creating a paper tiger, with limited or no
> authority to which we'd funnel a ton of complaints - I can't imagine
> how demoralizing it would be to take all the complaints in the first
> place, but then only to be able to offer suggestions would take an
> incredible set of people, and I fear we'd burn them out very fast.
>
> I notice that Gentoo has discontinued their ombudsman program (I sadly
> can't find the original charter for the position with a quick google,
> or the reason for discontinuation). In it's place they put a developer
> relations council, any member of which may singly excommunicate a
> member from the project permanently, with the only appeal being to the
> full developer council. I don't think that is a direction Fedora
> should go, but I do find it interesting.
>
> I am very concerned that we not repeat something akin to the 'Hall
> Monitors' issues. Specifically I am very worried that the Board (and I
> am speaking for myself only) would second-guess any delegated body's
> decisions if it became overly controversial.
>

I am concerned about that too. However, I think that having a group that
specializes in mediation only is the best way to counteract that. A group
that has enforcement powers but where the power of enforcement ultimately
lies with the Board (as is laid out in the Code of Conduct Enforcement
document) is always going to be subject to second-guessing on the part of
the Board. Even if the present Board were to agree that the Board should
never change a decision made by that group, the next Board may well take
a more active role in decisions made.

By contrast, mediation works by *not* having the mediator make decisions.
Instead, the mediator facilitates communication between the parties
involved, works to have both sides understand the positions of the other,
and tries to get the parties to agree to a course of action on their own.
If the parties come to agreement due to the mediator, then there is no
escalation to the Board as the people involved have resolved their
differences already.

Another way to say this is that far from being a paper tiger, a group that
specializes in doing mediation is no tiger at all. They are not here to
enforce a code of conduct and reprimand people who don't follow it, they're
here to help people understand each other's viewpoints and try to refine
their ideas to satisfy as many of the problems that the other one sees as
possible.

On the other hand, I think that some of the other people within the Board do
favor having a group that works to enforce the Code of Conduct. That group,
however, seems set up to be second guessed by the Board quite frequently.
The idea seemed to be that the group could serve as the first people to
handle enforcement issues. If the parties in the conflict were unhappy with
what happened they could then escalate to the Board. How is that better
than how we setup Hall Monitors?

> I guess I am also
> skeptical of the number of problems that really need intervention. I
> understand there to be flare ups from time to time, but I doubt a
> formal mediator (or at least one past the channel ops or list
> owner/moderator) is needed in most cases. If there really exists so
> many serious problems as to need a dedicated mediator/team of
> mediators, perhaps there are bigger problems to be dealt with than the
> mediation process.
>
I don't see mediators as being limited to the kinds of conflicts that lead
to violations of the Code of Conduct. I see them as being available to help
steer discussions in productive directions so that the conditions where
violations of the Code of Conduct occur are less common place. Mediators
help people feel better about working on Fedora by making sure that the
people involved in a discussion have their thoughts heard and issues
addressed.

I also think the skills that mediators have would be beneficial for everyone
within Fedora to absorb. If the need for mediation in Fedora was low,
mediators could increase the productivity of Fedora developers by training
them in techniques for listening to others, negotiating fairly, and other
techniques that make them more effective.

-Toshio
_______________________________________________
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 07:45 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ę2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org