On Tuesday 13 March 2007 13:32, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > > First of all, I think most part of the code is just common sense. That's > also the reason that it is not explicit about many things. Strictly defined > rules don't apply in all situations, and jerks find ways around them or to > argue that the rule does not apply to them. I agree. -However I fail to see which channels are affected and which are not? -Who's going to enfore it(I just presumed it to be Devrel but it could also be the Council itself)? -What are the appeal options if any?
And with only three days for commenting this seems like a rushed proposal that is better postponed to the next meeting. AFAIR we've had similar issues postponed just because of this deadline. Let's give all devs and near devs a chance to speak up. > The modus operandi should be: "We (council) define what is acceptable > behaviour. If you don't like it, vote us off and get a "better" council. > Until that time, comply. To me that is the only way to avoid free for all. > We have seen that taping things over doesn't work. So the current situation is: We have both devs and non-devs disregard normal code of conduct. We have a written policy about dev behaviour but haven't enforced it on several occasions so now we are going to try regulating the users instead? Shouldn't we just try to behave ourselves before trying to make others behave? (no flames or blames intended, it's just how I see it) > > Before getting into any detail, perhaps in another mail, I have one > > objection to this proposal. > > I don't see how this is an objection. It sound more like a remark or > observation. Naturally the enforcement needs to happen and infrastructure > must be supportive to that (e.g. by providing do-it-yourself tools to > devrel). As long as Devrel doesn't have the power to enforce it I don't see a point. If the Council has the power to enforce this fairly, then great. > > I do support more power to Devrel but lets try to keep the house clean > > before we take care of the garden. > > Well, I don't consider -dev to be our garden, but rather gentoo's living > with an open door policy. Most participants are either devs, or are close > to being devs. In any case they are not general users. As for -dev you're right. But again the proposal is so vague it only mentions "Gentoo's official communication infrastructure". I take this to mean all mailing lists, forums, IRC. So in my eyes it will affect general users as well. > ps. I would also like to suggest that the devrels looks at things like > micro bans. That is, banning someone for a couple of days from sending to > the mailing list. This could be effective against e.g. people who continue > to feed trolls after being warned not to do so. Seems like a better and less heavy handed approach to me. -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz)
pgpHwqWQ94yVp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
