> On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 10:56 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 05:04:51AM -0400, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > > How about we rely instead on the values and attributes that > > > actually make our community strong? > > > > > > Specifically: maturity, honesty, and a self-correcting nature. > > > > > > How about we simply require that each candidate for a TC or PTL > > > election gives a simple undertaking in their self-nomination mail, > > > along the lines of: > > > > > > "I undertake to respect the election process, as required by > > > the community code of conduct. > > > > > > I also undertake not to engage in campaign practices that the > > > community has considered objectionable in the past, including > > > but not limited to, unsolicited mail shots and private campaign > > > events. > > > > > > If my behavior during this election period does not live up to > > > those standards, please feel free to call me out on it on this > > > mailing list and/or withhold your vote." > > > > I like this proposal because it focuses on the carrot rather than > > the stick, which is ultimately better for community cohesiveness > > IMHO. > > I like it too. A slight tweak of that would be to require candidates to > sign the pledge publicly via an online form. We could invite the > community as a whole to sign it too in order to have candidates' > supporters covered.
Fair point, that would work for me also. > > It is already part of our community ethos that we can call > > people out to publically debate / stand up & justify any & all > > issues affecting the project whether they be related to the code, > > architecture, or non-technical issues such as electioneering > > behaviour. > > > > > We then rely on: > > > > > > (a) the self-policing nature of an honest, open community > > > > > > and: > > > > > > (b) the maturity and sound judgement within that community > > > giving us the ability to quickly spot and disregard any > > > frivolous reports of mis-behavior > > > > > > So no need for heavy-weight inquisitions, no need to interrupt the > > > election process, no need for handing out of stiff penalties such > > > as termination of membership. > > > > Before jumping headlong for a big stick to whack people with, I think > > I'd expect to see examples of problems we've actually faced (as opposed > > to vague hypotheticals), and a clear illustration that a self-policing > > approach to the community interaction failed to address them. I've not > > personally seen/experianced any problems that are so severe that they'd > > suggest we need the ability to kick someone out of the community for > > sending email ! > > Indeed. This discussion is happening in a vacuum for many people who do > not know the details of the private emails and private campaign events > which happened in the previous cycle. > > The only one I know of first hand was a private email where the > recipients quickly responded saying the email was out of line and the > original sender apologized profusely. People can make mistakes in good > faith and if we can deal with it quickly and maturely as a community, > all the better. Exactly. Most realistic missteps that I can imagine could be dealt with by a simple calling out of the error, then moving on quickly. Simple, lightweight, a teachable moment. No need for heavy-handed inquisitions IMHO if we trust our own instincts as a community. Cheers, Eoghan > In this example, the sender's apology could have bee followed up with > "look, here's our code of conduct; sign it now, respect it in the > future, and let that be the end of the matter". _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev