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 08-28-2012, 07:32 PM
Kevin Fenzi
 
Default 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
 
Old 08-28-2012, 07:44 PM
Jon Ciesla
 
Default 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
 
Old 08-28-2012, 07:50 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default 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
 
Old 08-28-2012, 08:05 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default 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
 
Old 08-28-2012, 08:18 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default 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
 
Old 08-28-2012, 08:31 PM
Jon Ciesla
 
Default 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
 
Old 08-29-2012, 03:18 PM
"Eric "Sparks" Christensen"
 
Default Community Working Group status?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/28/2012 09:54 PM, "Jóhann B. Gušmundsson" 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
 
Old 08-29-2012, 03:26 PM
Kevin Fenzi
 
Default 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
 
Old 08-29-2012, 03:32 PM
Marķa Leandro
 
Default 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
 
Old 08-29-2012, 04:33 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default 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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:15 AM.

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