Community Working Group status?
Greetings.
I've seen a few things recently where folks were asked to take conflicts or issues to the Community Working Group. However, I don't think the CWG is really still active or functional. There's no term limits or succession guidelines, and I don't think anyone in the CWG has done anything since the code of conduct work. (which was around a year ago). I'd like to propose that it be dissolved and folks are asked instead to take interpersonal conflicts to a Board ticket (if they have exhausted the process in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement ) Thoughts? kevin _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board |
Community Working Group status?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@scrye.com> wrote:
> Greetings. > > I've seen a few things recently where folks were asked to take > conflicts or issues to the Community Working Group. > > However, I don't think the CWG is really still active or functional. > There's no term limits or succession guidelines, and I don't think > anyone in the CWG has done anything since the code of conduct work. > (which was around a year ago). > > I'd like to propose that it be dissolved and folks are asked instead to > take interpersonal conflicts to a Board ticket (if they have exhausted > the process in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement ) > > Thoughts? Based on: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group#Staffing Isn't it already dissolved? -J > kevin > > _______________________________________________ > advisory-board mailing list > advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------------ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board |
Community Working Group status?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:32:11PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings. > > I've seen a few things recently where folks were asked to take > conflicts or issues to the Community Working Group. > > However, I don't think the CWG is really still active or functional. > There's no term limits or succession guidelines, and I don't think > anyone in the CWG has done anything since the code of conduct work. > (which was around a year ago). > > I'd like to propose that it be dissolved and folks are asked instead to > take interpersonal conflicts to a Board ticket (if they have exhausted > the process in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement ) > > Thoughts? > Having already been present on the Board during one misunderstanding about whether the Board wanted the CWG to continue, I'd really like the current CWG members to express their opinions. That seems to be you, rbergeron, mjg59, and bpepple. I'm sure that we can catch rbergeron at one of our meetings and ask for her thoughts :-) mjg, bpepple, what are your thoughts? -Toshio _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board |
Community Working Group status?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:32:11PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > I'd like to propose that it be dissolved and folks are asked instead to > take interpersonal conflicts to a Board ticket (if they have exhausted > the process in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement ) > > Thoughts? > Taking off my board member hat for a moment, I think that there's a very real benefit to having a group of moderators who are not on the Fedora Board who can work to mediate conflicts. Two reasons I see are: * There are times I'd like mediation where one of the parties is the Board itself. This necessitates a third party that is not the Board. * Criteria for selecting and electing Board members is not driven solely by the question of how good they are at moderating discussions, helping other people reach compromises, and stay neutral in cases of conflicts. Staying neutral is an opposite trait from the Board's role in making decisions when there is a failed agreed upon action. So if the current CWG members would like to disband, I would like to see a new group of moderators formed. If no one else steps up, perhaps I can work on that after I leave the Board (although, I'll still be on the FPC which has its own share of issues that would benefit from an outside moderator from time to time). -Toshio _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board |
Community Working Group status?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 02:44:01PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@scrye.com> wrote: > > Greetings. > > > > I've seen a few things recently where folks were asked to take > > conflicts or issues to the Community Working Group. > > > > However, I don't think the CWG is really still active or functional. > > There's no term limits or succession guidelines, and I don't think > > anyone in the CWG has done anything since the code of conduct work. > > (which was around a year ago). > > > > I'd like to propose that it be dissolved and folks are asked instead to > > take interpersonal conflicts to a Board ticket (if they have exhausted > > the process in > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement ) > > > > Thoughts? > > Based on: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group#Staffing > > Isn't it already dissolved? > I'd rather have the CWG members tell us something about their present thinking because of the last time the Board tentatively put its foot into that water. Thread starts here: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2011-May/010673.html -Toshio _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board |
Community Working Group status?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 02:44:01PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@scrye.com> wrote: >> > Greetings. >> > >> > I've seen a few things recently where folks were asked to take >> > conflicts or issues to the Community Working Group. >> > >> > However, I don't think the CWG is really still active or functional. >> > There's no term limits or succession guidelines, and I don't think >> > anyone in the CWG has done anything since the code of conduct work. >> > (which was around a year ago). >> > >> > I'd like to propose that it be dissolved and folks are asked instead to >> > take interpersonal conflicts to a Board ticket (if they have exhausted >> > the process in >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement ) >> > >> > Thoughts? >> >> Based on: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group#Staffing >> >> Isn't it already dissolved? >> > I'd rather have the CWG members tell us something about their present > thinking because of the last time the Board tentatively put its foot into > that water. Thread starts here: > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2011-May/010673.html Certainly. -J > -Toshio > > _______________________________________________ > advisory-board mailing list > advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------------ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board |
Community Working Group status?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 On 08/28/2012 09:54 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > On 08/28/2012 07:32 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> Greetings. >> >> I've seen a few things recently where folks were asked to take >> conflicts or issues to the Community Working Group. >> >> However, I don't think the CWG is really still active or >> functional. There's no term limits or succession guidelines, and >> I don't think anyone in the CWG has done anything since the code >> of conduct work. (which was around a year ago). >> >> I'd like to propose that it be dissolved and folks are asked >> instead to take interpersonal conflicts to a Board ticket (if >> they have exhausted the process in >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement >> ) >> >> Thoughts? > > This process in the community ought to be kept separated from the > board for obvious reasons. I agree that the CWG should be handling these issues and the Board should not be the ones directly involved with the resolution of these issues. I guess it says something about the Fedora community that the CWG hasn't had much to do over the years. With a few minor exceptions we are generally a well-behaved, courteous, and honorable team. - -- Eric -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQPjKsAAoJEIB2q94CS7PRwWIP/03Y/jnlL0fWxVhcp3GEoFHu e25HHhshTmrwUh+ZIiQmwidb2nUV56qcf/RYKWohHgC8VUqahTi3l+4PNwHFTiQb 7RzP6qna4eWU2AIX7I9jiHyo76G187Gfkr5hsl8EPq1osti4u9 rxjcqjjHjk4dMV 5A2vS+RlLuWkQvXpz4Y5Wu2t1wDBZ/T2MsWxafm79yYh1ueEfcGoJEpSVzPvYXR9 CyDUqKbYv1lAa//TYI9p+jw1YmKjNpN2jcEbuHFHfDS+zmiy//JwVm7KwQgjmFDe sSnws86ob9/n+qfJNCkoL31rMmg0LRODuCUXYsgom/7p4H8fIj44VOH2qpnsgOc1 PQxQpv6QmzWk7VNd2KFKub5RT9oOpCSXN8kvCnq/DC297o6AKJ6JutL23z+eDhfU 9tIu0wE0xhRz7inu1r/GkvC/YdeP+A1dCI7JxHyvqGGBmWsMUGgfITEJYJ9ucTrn aUX3KElimTBv8vTwAm936S755ZEQDOkzg7oDKR/ihGgE+foBeJb/wLl8o50wMdrz VZ0ZP6MqYsGuMAhyG0GCTctC4ENeCSGf49NHOV7voVHyRL0qlu uXHjS2E1EeTSTX Gg0qD+/k/tEvDtuyIOqoc/7fj2WAr//iww856KNPaCydYWxsZkeALIVSoL4SFfLP R9Dl5Ry8tQI7PEQFQx8I =n2zQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board |
Community Working Group status?
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:05:57 -0700
Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> wrote: > Taking off my board member hat for a moment, I think that there's a > very real benefit to having a group of moderators who are not on the > Fedora Board who can work to mediate conflicts. Two reasons I see > are: > > * There are times I'd like mediation where one of the parties is the > Board itself. This necessitates a third party that is not the Board. Well, the same could be said for the situation when one of the parties is on the CWG? Or should there be a CWG^prime to handle those. ;) > * Criteria for selecting and electing Board members is not driven > solely by the question of how good they are at moderating > discussions, helping other people reach compromises, and stay neutral > in cases of conflicts. Staying neutral is an opposite trait from the > Board's role in making decisions when there is a failed agreed upon > action. True. > So if the current CWG members would like to disband, I would like to > see a new group of moderators formed. If no one else steps up, > perhaps I can work on that after I leave the Board (although, I'll > still be on the FPC which has its own share of issues that would > benefit from an outside moderator from time to time). If there's a need for the CWG, I could see it continuing, but at the very least the following need to happen: * The board needs to agree it's a long term body (the wiki page still says "This charter will stand until one year after ratification (Oct 25, 2010), at which point it will be revisited and an updated charter submitted for renewal and continuation of the Community Working Group." * The board should determine how members are added/replaced. We had a member bow out a long time ago with no replacement. Is there a time limit for serving? (All the usual replacement and succession stuff). kevin _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board |
Community Working Group status?
Hello again.
I'm sorry for what I'm about to say, but I don't think Board has nothing to do with this. Team has to be gathered first because experience tell us that if we set up a 4 people team, and only 4 show up, at the end, if we are lucky, only one stands. What if we just call people, let them do the work, and based on how things go we determine more rules? Lets let people do the work that we need without so much*bureaucratic procedures*pls. Passwords can be handled by the same people and this handlers can be leaders of each team that gets together. 2012/8/29 Kevin Fenzi <kevin@scrye.com> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:05:57 -0700 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> wrote: > Taking off my board member hat for a moment, I think that there's a > very real benefit to having a group of moderators who are not on the > Fedora Board who can work to mediate conflicts. *Two reasons I see > are: > > * There are times I'd like mediation where one of the parties is the > Board itself. *This necessitates a third party that is not the Board. Well, the same could be said for the situation when one of the parties is on the CWG? Or should there be a CWG^prime to handle those. ;) > * Criteria for selecting and electing Board members is not driven > solely by the question of how good they are at moderating > discussions, helping other people reach compromises, and stay neutral > in cases of conflicts. *Staying neutral is an opposite trait from the > Board's role in making decisions when there is a failed agreed upon > action. True. > So if the current CWG members would like to disband, I would like to > see a new group of moderators formed. *If no one else steps up, > perhaps I can work on that after I leave the Board (although, I'll > still be on the FPC which has its own share of issues that would > benefit from an outside moderator from time to time). If there's a need for the CWG, I could see it continuing, but at the very least the following need to happen: * The board needs to agree it's a long term body (the wiki page still * says "This charter will stand until one year after ratification (Oct * 25, 2010), at which point it will be revisited and an updated charter * submitted for renewal and continuation of the Community Working * Group." * The board should determine how members are added/replaced. We had a * member bow out a long time ago with no replacement. Is there a time * limit for serving? (All the usual replacement and succession stuff). kevin _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board -- tatica Maria Gracia Leandro http://www.tatica.org http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:tatica LinuxUser= 440285* GPG Public Key: E1CDCC56 _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board |
Community Working Group status?
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 09:26:13AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:05:57 -0700 > Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Taking off my board member hat for a moment, I think that there's a > > very real benefit to having a group of moderators who are not on the > > Fedora Board who can work to mediate conflicts. Two reasons I see > > are: > > > > * There are times I'd like mediation where one of the parties is the > > Board itself. This necessitates a third party that is not the Board. > > Well, the same could be said for the situation when one of the parties > is on the CWG? Or should there be a CWG^prime to handle those. ;) > The Board generally "speaks with one voice". So from the outside it seems like a single unit that is issuing decisions. A CWG that doesn't make decisions inside of itself can project its image differently. The idea would be that you can't have an issue with the CWG as a group because it doesn't make decisions as a group. You might have an issue with CWG member toshio in his role as an FPC member, but then you should be able to utilize CWG mediator bpepple to discuss your differences with the FPC instead. Will this work in practice or will it degenerate into an "old-boys club"? I think it will work if the members are conscious about not becoming an inside club (maybe establish rules about recusing ones' self and whether a recused member can offer advice to the mediator in charge of that dispute). Trying it out for a bit would tell us more if people are interested in participating. > > > So if the current CWG members would like to disband, I would like to > > see a new group of moderators formed. If no one else steps up, > > perhaps I can work on that after I leave the Board (although, I'll > > still be on the FPC which has its own share of issues that would > > benefit from an outside moderator from time to time). > > If there's a need for the CWG, I could see it continuing, but at the > very least the following need to happen: > > * The board needs to agree it's a long term body (the wiki page still > says "This charter will stand until one year after ratification (Oct > 25, 2010), at which point it will be revisited and an updated charter > submitted for renewal and continuation of the Community Working > Group." > +1. Sounds like a good plan to me. > * The board should determine how members are added/replaced. We had a > member bow out a long time ago with no replacement. Is there a time > limit for serving? (All the usual replacement and succession stuff). > Scanning old email threads really, really briefly, it looks like there were two proposals for succession: * People volunteer to serve on it (much like QA or current EPEL is run) * Board appoints people to it. Any other brainstorming ideas? -Toshio _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:01 AM. |
VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.