> "Charles" == Charles Plessy writes:
Charles> Le Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:55:41PM +, Martina Ferrari a
Charles> écrit :
>>
>> A short reply in a personal capacity..
Charles> Hi Martina and everybody,
Charles> I have always found replies “in a personal capacity”
Le Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:55:41PM +, Martina Ferrari a écrit :
>
> A short reply in a personal capacity..
Hi Martina and everybody,
I have always found replies “in a personal capacity” or “with [the
team's] hat off” very confusing; probably because I rarely see this
communication style
Wouter,
A short reply in a personal capacity..
On 08/11/2019 19:28, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> While I'm not arguing that we should take punitive action against
> everyone who violates our current Code of Conduct in the "almost bad"
> sense, there is a reason why it mentions "repeat offenders";
>
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> > That is, the team would rule on individual cases, rather than issuing
> > "lists of things not to do". IMHO that pretty much would make it a
> > court with the power to judge project members. And I'm
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> That is, the team would rule on individual cases, rather than issuing
> "lists of things not to do". IMHO that pretty much would make it a
> court with the power to judge project members. And I'm not sure that
> the team not taking actual measures,
Hi Steve,
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 10:26:39PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
[...]
> Responsibilities include
>
>
> * Interpreting the Code of Conduct;
I have to say that it was never my intention that there be one team that
would have the power to "interpret" the Code of
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 07:37:16AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > * In extreme incidents or after repeated harmful behaviour or Code of
> > Conduct violations, writing reports for relevant teams (e.g. Planet
> > admins, listmasters, DAM), to summarise relevant incidents along
> > with
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
Holger> Hi Sam,
Holger> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 09:34:25AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> >> 2) Choose to delegate. From my side the biggest question is
Holger> could you please give a rough range for what 'enough people'
Holger> would
Hi Sam,
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 09:34:25AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >> 2) Choose to delegate. From my side the biggest question is
> Holger> could you please give a rough range for what 'enough people'
> Holger> would mean to you? Are 5 enough? 12? 23? 42?
> I'd prefer to toss
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
Holger> Dear Sam,
Holger> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 07:37:16AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> 2) Choose to delegate. From my side the biggest question is
>> likely to be whether you have managed to recruit enough people to
>> [...]
Dear Sam,
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 07:37:16AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 2) Choose to delegate. From my side the biggest question is likely to
> be whether you have managed to recruit enough people to [...]
could you please give a rough range for what 'enough people' would
mean to you? Are 5
Dear Steve:
It sounds like the feedback you've received falls into a couple of
categories:
1) Some minor tweaks, which you have responded to or are seeking more
input on. Below the dashed line I have a couple of tweak/questions of
my own.
2) A concern that the responsibilities you have
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 01:40:34PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Posting draft team missions where one has to read between the lines
> about possible institutional conflicts and other unsaid issues, is
> emphatically /NOT/ a way to build trust within the project.
To make it clear: I think the
On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 13:40:34 +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 04:04:49AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > Once you do that I'll be happy to work with you just as I would any
> > > other group approaching changing/renewing/creating a delegation.
> [...]
> > But then I see no
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 04:04:49AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Once you do that I'll be happy to work with you just as I would any
> > other group approaching changing/renewing/creating a delegation.
[...]
> But then I see no reason at all why they need to do that now. Even though
> they have
On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 07:27:30 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Martina" == Martina Ferrari writes:
> Martina> The main conclusion from that is that yes, some of things
> Martina> expressed in the proposal require a delegation, I agree!
> Martina> Perhaps, the disconnection lies in
together than
spam the list N times here.
I hope I've responded to people's points reasonably in this summary;
If you think otherwise then please point it out.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:08:55AM +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote:
>* Steve McIntyre: " Community Team - where we want to go"
Hello Martina,
On Fri 11 Oct 2019 at 04:56AM +01, Martina Ferrari wrote:
> On 10/10/2019 10:16, Enrico Zini wrote:
>> I suggest to review your notes with the idea that there could be two
>> or more such teams in Debian posting the same set of notes, and they
>> shouldn't conflict.
>
> I don't
TL;DR: I think delegating the community team would be great; if that's
their desire let's work toward that.
> "Martina" == Martina Ferrari writes:
Martina> The main conclusion from that is that yes, some of things
Martina> expressed in the proposal require a delegation, I agree!
Hi,
Responding here on individual capacity, and my team mates will surely
have different views on some items. I will try to address some of the
comments and criticisms of our proposal at once.
First of all, I think that we did not make it clear enough that this is
"where we want to go", as the
A community team is a good thing. Just its apparent focus on the Code of
Conduct is unfortunate. The biggest modulators of how we interact among
ourselves and how much inviting we are perceived as a community imho
currently are (somewhat ordered):
* salsa
* blends
* debconfs
* sprints
*
On 09/10/19 at 22:26 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> * Proactively writing emails to those who habitually make the
>community a hostile place, informing them that their behavior is
>harmful to the community, that action may be taken in the future,
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 10:26:39PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> We've had a lot of conversations this year about where the
> Anti-Harassment (now *Community*) Team should be going: what we're
> trying to do, and the relationship we'd like to have with the rest of
> the project and
[content summary: interpretation with delegation, role separation for
definition and enforcement of rules, distinction between guidance and
warning, timeliness.]
Hi Steve, Community team and everybody,
I think that the current changes in name and role of the A-H team go in
a good direction.
> "Enrico" == Enrico Zini writes:
Enrico> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 10:26:39PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Enrico> I join other respondents, with a risk of redundancy, with a
Enrico> few notes due to the decision of not having delegated powers
Enrico> and being an undelegated
On October 10, 2019 9:00:43 AM UTC, Gerardo Ballabio
wrote:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Within the team, we've brainstormed about this and come up with the
>following to describe our role and responsibilities. We'd like to
>discuss it now with the rest of the project. Feedback welcome please!
>
I wrote:
> That isn't really different from the Community Team claiming ownership of
> interpreting the CoC simply because they were the first who started working
> on that.
Thinking again about it, maybe they should have filed an ITP bug?!?
Gerardo
Enrico Zini wrote:
>> * Remove blogs from community forums like Planet Debian
>
>This I think is something the team could actually do, just as any Debian
>Developer could do it, having commit access to the planet config.
While technically they have the ability to do that, they are not
allowed
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Within the team, we've brainstormed about this and come up with the following
> to describe our role and responsibilities. We'd like to discuss it now with
> the rest of the project. Feedback welcome please!
Hi Steve,
that looks good (I especially like the "Examples of
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 10:26:39PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I join other respondents, with a risk of redundancy, with a few notes
due to the decision of not having delegated powers and being an
undelegated advisory group.
> The (CT) is the team responsible for interpreting the Code of
* Steve McIntyre: " Community Team - where we want to go" (Wed, 9 Oct 2019
22:26:39 +0100):
Hi!
> Within the team, we've brainstormed about this and come up with the
> following to describe our role and responsibilities. We'd like to
> discuss it now with the rest of th
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 5:26:39 PM EDT Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> We've had a lot of conversations this year about where the
> Anti-Harassment (now *Community*) Team should be going: what we're
> trying to do, and the relationship we'd like to have with the rest of
> the project
On 2019/10/10 02:40, Norbert Preining wrote:
> As "just another group of Debian Developers" I am not sure how you can
> usurp the right to exegesis of the CoC? What about if another group XYZ
> (like the Debian TeX Team) decides that our responsability is
> Interpreting the Code of Conduct
Hi
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Name: Community Team
> The team itself has no direct powers to enforce any decision, and
> merely acts as an advisory body. It will aim to respond in a timely
> Responsibilities include
> * Interpreting the Code of Conduct;
As "just another
Hi folks,
We've had a lot of conversations this year about where the
Anti-Harassment (now *Community*) Team should be going: what we're
trying to do, and the relationship we'd like to have with the rest of
the project and the wider community.
Within the team, we've brainstormed about this and
35 matches
Mail list logo
