Re: Meeting Minutes Published - November 12, 2009

2009-11-25 Thread Dave Neary
Hi,

Brian Cameron wrote:
 * Need to find a new time for the meeting since the current time is
   not good for Srinivasa Ragavan. Stormy will set up a new Doodle
   meeting. Everyone: enter your times in Doodle, be flexible!

Can I repeat my suggestion of the start of the term?

Rotate the time of the meeting so that it is at the same local time for
a different attendee every meeting. That way, the pain is shared, and
every board member ends up being inconvenienced from time to time. Since
there are more European and American (continents, not country) board
members  staff, they will be proportionately less inconvenienced than
Srini, but at least once in every 10 meetings, everyone else will be
getting up at 6 in the morning too.

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
dne...@gnome.org
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Meeting Minutes Published - October 29, 2009

2009-11-25 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 23:53 +0100, Andy Wingo wrote:

Hi Andy,

 On Fri 13 Nov 2009 22:27, Brian Cameron brian.came...@sun.com writes:
 
  Minutes for Meeting of October 29th, 2009
 [...]
More generally, we need to make sure that GNOME Foundation members
sign the GNOME Code of Conduct, and perhaps make it a requirement
for new members to sign. Also need to update the GNOME blog and
planet so that it is more clear that people should follow the
GNOME Code of Conduct.
 
 A couple of thoughts:
 
 First, the planet has always been under editorial control; it has a
 maintainer, like any other module -- actually a few of them.
 
 Therefore, what is or is not on the planet may fairly be seen to be
 under the purview of the maintainer(s), who are there due to their
 respected position in the field of their module, in this case in the
 public discourse of GNOME. So they can promote or censure certain
 kinds of speech as they see fit.

I'm glad that you write this, Andy. 

This is how I see it too. I often still get told that this is not the
case and that each individual blogger is himself responsible.

That way it's chaotic and very hard to manage, enforce.

I agree that each individual blogger should consider that each article,
that he puts in a category that he gave the planet maintainers, can
appear on the planet. He's responsible for his own blog and reputation.

but

I too think that in the end the planet is a project like any other
GNOME-one, with its own maintainers and, thus, editorial control. What
is or is not on the planet may indeed be seen to be under the purview of
those maintainers (in my opinion).

Furthermore I don't think it's censorship or wrong to skip blog posts,
if a planet maintainer doesn't want it on the planet. Maybe it should be
possible to ask the project members why a blog article got skipped?
Maybe some guidelines need to be set up? Sure (is a maintainer decision)

 Secondly, binding or pseudo-binding resolutions on the Foundation
 membership should probably be ratified by the Foundation membership
 itself via some more formal process. As it is I don't think a majority
 have signed the CoC. (FWIW, I have.)

Before committing ourselves to require it, I think we'd first need to
convince all current members to sign the CoC themselves. 

Else it'll be a quagmire of people who have and people don't have to,
and people who had to sign it. (FWIW, I have.)

I'm not against requiring this. I'm against public punishments for
people who violate it. I'm not against telling somebody in private to
chill: Assume people mean well is an important advice in the Coc.


Greetings,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Lucas Rocha
Hi all,

The Board has recently received some complaints from members of the
community about certain the inappropriate behaviors. In the context of
GNOME Foundation, it's really hard to argue about how we expect our
members to behave if there is no official guidelines that members are
supposed to comply with. The GNOME Code of Conduct[1] has been serving
very well as an informal guideline for the community but we'd like to
make it an official document that new Foundation members are expected
to explicitly agree[2] with before being accepted. This way we'll have a
common ground for dealing with certain conflict situations and avoid
trying to base our discussions on guidelines that certain members
haven't explicitly agreed on.

Before deciding on this, we thought it would be useful to get some
feedback from the community.

Thanks,

--lucasr
on behalf of the GNOME Foundation Board of Directors

[1] http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct
[2] http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct/Signatures
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Meeting Minutes Published - October 29, 2009

2009-11-25 Thread Lucas Rocha
Hi,

2009/11/24 Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org:
 Le mardi 24 novembre 2009, à 23:53 +0100, Andy Wingo a écrit :
 Hi Brian,

 Thanks for the detailed and readable notes!

 On Fri 13 Nov 2009 22:27, Brian Cameron brian.came...@sun.com writes:

  Minutes for Meeting of October 29th, 2009
 [...]
        More generally, we need to make sure that GNOME Foundation members
        sign the GNOME Code of Conduct, and perhaps make it a requirement
        for new members to sign. Also need to update the GNOME blog and
        planet so that it is more clear that people should follow the
        GNOME Code of Conduct.

 A couple of thoughts:

 First, the planet has always been under editorial control; it has a
 maintainer, like any other module -- actually a few of them.

 Therefore, what is or is not on the planet may fairly be seen to be
 under the purview of the maintainer(s), who are there due to their
 respected position in the field of their module, in this case in the
 public discourse of GNOME. So they can promote or censure certain
 kinds of speech as they see fit.

 Yep. And it is expected by the current editors that blog posts that
 appear on Planet GNOME respect the Code of Conduct :-) It's mentioned in
 the guidelines for Planet GNOME in the wiki, but it's not mentioned in
 the current footer.

 Secondly, binding or pseudo-binding resolutions on the Foundation
 membership should probably be ratified by the Foundation membership
 itself via some more formal process. As it is I don't think a majority
 have signed the CoC. (FWIW, I have.)

 Nod. Actually, I think there was an action item about starting a
 discussion here on this topic... I guess the mail is in the draft folder
 somewhere, it should hopefully arrive soon ;-)

I've just created a new thread for the official discussion on this
topic. Please, continue there.

--lucasr
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Meeting Minutes Published - October 29, 2009

2009-11-25 Thread Emmanuele Bassi
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 21:01 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
 On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Emmanuele Bassi eba...@gmail.com
 wrote:
   There is no official enforcement of these principles
 
 unless the CoC gets an official enforcement (and this
 paragraph is
 removed) any requirement on having members sign the CoC page
 is a
 pointless exercise.
 
 
 What kind of enforcement would you like to see? A public shaming?
 Temporarily suspension of Planet privileges? Would the membership
 committee be a good place to do this?

I'm not interested in public shaming; what I'm interested in is that
there is a well-defined, possibly quick way for foundation members (and
non-members as well) to report and have addressed CoC violations.

currently it's all over the place: bugzilla is policed by the bug
masters, the planet is policed by its editors, the mailing lists are
policed by the lists maintainers, IRC is policed by the people in
#opers. I might happen to know this but it's not explicitly defined
anywhere; and even if it were, the sentence up there makes reporting
seem a moot point.

if we want to have the CoC as a binding contract for foundation members
then yes: I agree that the membership committee should be the official
contact for requests of enforcement.

ciao,
 Emmanuele.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Dave Neary
Hi,

Lucas Rocha wrote:
 The GNOME Code of Conduct[1] has been serving
 very well as an informal guideline for the community but we'd like to
 make it an official document that new Foundation members are expected
 to explicitly agree[2] with before being accepted. This way we'll have a
 common ground for dealing with certain conflict situations and avoid
 trying to base our discussions on guidelines that certain members
 haven't explicitly agreed on.

My views on this are already well known:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-May/msg00066.html

It seems like the issue isn't making people promise to be nice, it's
what happens when they aren't. And once again the board has taken the
easy way out, by not being judgemental about reported behaviour.

In this case, I'd like to see the board clearly come out  say we don't
have a problem with this, or we have a problem with this (while
saying what this is), instead of having a wishy-washy solution. Mostly
I agree with Emmanuele  Jason on this.

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
dne...@gnome.org
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Lucas Rocha luc...@gnome.org wrote:
 it's really hard to argue about how we expect our
 members to behave if there is no official guidelines that members are
 supposed to comply with.

That seems like a cop-out to me, at least as phrased. Does this mean
if there's a codified set of guidelines in the future but it doesn't
address something explicitly, then your hands are tied in addressing
it? Inappropriate is inappropriate, whether it's pointed out ahead of
time or not.

Yes, a set of guidelines is a good idea, but this shouldn't hold up
the board addressing behaviors that are clearly inappropriate,
guidelines or no.

Best,

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier j...@zonker.net
openSUSE Community Manager
Get openSUSE 11.2! http://bit.ly/EOV8a
Twitter: jzb | Identica: jzb
About: http://www.dissociatedpress.net/about/
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Mukund Sivaraman
Hi Lucas

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:48:45PM +, Lucas Rocha wrote:
 The GNOME Code of Conduct[1] has been serving very well as an
 informal guideline for the community but we'd like to make it an
 official document that new Foundation members are expected to
 explicitly agree[2] with before being accepted.

I think this is taking it too far. The Code of Conduct being
presented as a set of guidelines is OK, but it is not wise to make it
policy.  The GNOME project is not a sect, to control what I can and
cannot say/do in public.

The current code of document[1] has some incredible guidelines such as
the advice against using RTFM, which arguably has nothing to do with
bad behavior.  Also, instructions such as Be patient and generous are
vague by themselves. Your measure of patience may be quite different
from mine. These are OK as guidelines, but not as policy.

1. http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct

Mukund
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Stormy Peters
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Mukund Sivaraman m...@banu.com wrote:


 I think this is taking it too far. The Code of Conduct being
 presented as a set of guidelines is OK, but it is not wise to make it
 policy.  The GNOME project is not a sect, to control what I can and
 cannot say/do in public.


We are talking about GNOME hosted platforms. Planet GNOME,
blogs.gnome.organd the GNOME mailing lists are all forums we host and
I think we can (and
do) expect a certain standard of conduct on them. For example, if someone
started spamming the Foundation list, we would block them.

(Public does not mean you can do whatever you want. In most public places
there are laws you have to follow.)

Stormy
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Lionel Dricot

I believe that this discussion is becoming far too bloated.

How often do we have to deal with offended people? What energy will we
spend to deal with each case on a case by case basis? Answer is A.

How much energy will we spend to try to design a law/rule that might fit
every use case and will be discussed each time we have a case? Answer is B.

I expect A  B by at least one order of magnitude.

What is exactly the problem here? Sometimes some people are offended by
the content of planet GNOME? OK, it has always be the case but it's a
problem. A rare one but still a problem.
What effect will have deciding of rules, CoC or punishment on that
particular problem? I don't see how it could have an effect.

There will still be offending stuff from time to time on pgo. This was
never a problem in the past as it was handled on a case by case basis.
Anyway, there are always people offended by everything.


When you have to type a command once a year, you don't start developing a
framework that will handle every possible situation. (it has already been
done, it's called J2EE)

Cheers,

Lionel


On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:36:41 -0700, Stormy Peters
stormy.pet...@gmail.com
wrote:
 On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Mukund Sivaraman m...@banu.com wrote:
 

 I think this is taking it too far. The Code of Conduct being
 presented as a set of guidelines is OK, but it is not wise to make it
 policy.  The GNOME project is not a sect, to control what I can and
 cannot say/do in public.

 
 We are talking about GNOME hosted platforms. Planet GNOME,
 blogs.gnome.organd the GNOME mailing lists are all forums we host and
 I think we can (and
 do) expect a certain standard of conduct on them. For example, if
someone
 started spamming the Foundation list, we would block them.
 
 (Public does not mean you can do whatever you want. In most public
places
 there are laws you have to follow.)
 
 Stormy
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Jason D. Clinton
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:

 It seems like the issue isn't making people promise to be nice, it's
 what happens when they aren't. And once again the board has taken the
 easy way out, by not being judgemental about reported behaviour.

 In this case, I'd like to see the board clearly come out  say we don't
 have a problem with this, or we have a problem with this (while
 saying what this is), instead of having a wishy-washy solution. Mostly
 I agree with Emmanuele  Jason on this.


Well let's put a proposal on the table and get this behind us, finally. I
propose this amendment to the GNOME Code of Conduct:

Enforcement

Violations of the Code of Conduct on or in GNOME Foundation sites, mailing
lists or other forums of official GNOME business (such as conferences) are
referred to the GNOME Foundation Membership Committee which is empowered by
The Foundation to act quickly and judiciously. The Membership Committee,
upon review of a complaint, is empowered to ask that action be taken by the
maintainer of the forum(s) in which the violation occurred in the following
order, escalating only upon repeated violations within a short period of
time:

1. A warning from the Membership Committee or its representative
2. 1-day suspension of communication privileges in that forum of GNOME
communication
3. 1-week suspension of all communication privileges in all GNOME
communication forums
4. Permanent suspension of all communication privileges in all GNOME
communication forums.

The maintainers of any GNOME forum are strongly encouraged to adhere to the
Membership Committee's recommendations but not required to do so. It is
ultimately up to the forum maintainer to implement the suspensions; this
process is intended to bring a objectivity and transparency to any GCoC
punitive recommendation.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Stormy Peters
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Lionel Dricot pl...@ploum.net wrote:


 What is exactly the problem here? Sometimes some people are offended by
 the content of planet GNOME? OK, it has always be the case but it's a
 problem. A rare one but still a problem.
 What effect will have deciding of rules, CoC or punishment on that
 particular problem? I don't see how it could have an effect.


I think the problem isn't the offending material but rather that people
expect the board to take action when there is offending material.

The board wants to represent the community and so would like to make sure
there are clear guidelines on the behaviour the community expects and what
we'd like to have happen when people don't follow those guidelines.

Hopefully the guidelines will also make sure there is less offending
material.

Stormy
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Dave Neary
Hi,

Lionel Dricot wrote:
 How often do we have to deal with offended people? What energy will we
 spend to deal with each case on a case by case basis? Answer is A.
 
 How much energy will we spend to try to design a law/rule that might fit
 every use case and will be discussed each time we have a case? Answer is B.
 
 I expect A  B by at least one order of magnitude.

You forget how much energy is lost forever to the community because
good people walk away after an unpleasant experience?

It is telling that the main reason departing editors give when signing
off Wikipedia is: Wikipedia is becoming a more hostile environment,
contends Mr. Ortega, a project manager at Libresoft, a research group at
the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid. Many people are getting
burnt out when they have to debate about the contents of certain
articles again and again.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html

They have concrete measurements of participation, we don't. So we don't
know how many developers are inactive now, and were formerly active, or
why they left. But we certainly have anecdotal evidence of people who
have publicly left because they could no longer work in the GNOME
environment. I can give you 10 names off the top of my head.

You don't think that's a problem?

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
dne...@gnome.org
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread john palmieri
I'm against an enshrined code of conduct which suddenly kicks you out of
GNOME, or gets you shunned.  A Terms of Service for hosted sites which gets
your account unsubscribed for that site might be better if it is very
narrowly defined, e.g. no spamming, no porn, etc.  However as we move into
the realm of who offended who it gets dicey and predicated on the sentiments
of who is making the final call.  We've survived the oGalaxys and Bowie
Poags of the past and I don't think I have seen any worse conduct.  I'm
defering to the board if they really feel they need an enshrined document
but there should be a vote on the final draft if we go in this direction.

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Lionel Dricot pl...@ploum.net wrote:


 I believe that this discussion is becoming far too bloated.

 How often do we have to deal with offended people? What energy will we
 spend to deal with each case on a case by case basis? Answer is A.

 How much energy will we spend to try to design a law/rule that might fit
 every use case and will be discussed each time we have a case? Answer is B.

 I expect A  B by at least one order of magnitude.

 What is exactly the problem here? Sometimes some people are offended by
 the content of planet GNOME? OK, it has always be the case but it's a
 problem. A rare one but still a problem.
 What effect will have deciding of rules, CoC or punishment on that
 particular problem? I don't see how it could have an effect.

 There will still be offending stuff from time to time on pgo. This was
 never a problem in the past as it was handled on a case by case basis.
 Anyway, there are always people offended by everything.


 When you have to type a command once a year, you don't start developing a
 framework that will handle every possible situation. (it has already been
 done, it's called J2EE)

 Cheers,

 Lionel


 On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:36:41 -0700, Stormy Peters
 stormy.pet...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Mukund Sivaraman m...@banu.com wrote:
 
 
  I think this is taking it too far. The Code of Conduct being
  presented as a set of guidelines is OK, but it is not wise to make it
  policy.  The GNOME project is not a sect, to control what I can and
  cannot say/do in public.
 
 
  We are talking about GNOME hosted platforms. Planet GNOME,
  blogs.gnome.organd the GNOME mailing lists are all forums we host and
  I think we can (and
  do) expect a certain standard of conduct on them. For example, if
 someone
  started spamming the Foundation list, we would block them.
 
  (Public does not mean you can do whatever you want. In most public
 places
  there are laws you have to follow.)
 
  Stormy
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Jason D. Clinton
That is why the proposal that I just put on the table explicitly talks only
of official GNOME forums of communication which is, incidentally, exactly
like a terms of service.


2009/11/25 john palmieri john.j5.palmi...@gmail.com

 I'm against an enshrined code of conduct which suddenly kicks you out of
 GNOME, or gets you shunned.  A Terms of Service for hosted sites which gets
 your account unsubscribed for that site might be better if it is very
 narrowly defined, e.g. no spamming, no porn, etc.  However as we move into
 the realm of who offended who it gets dicey and predicated on the sentiments
 of who is making the final call.  We've survived the oGalaxys and Bowie
 Poags of the past and I don't think I have seen any worse conduct.  I'm
 defering to the board if they really feel they need an enshrined document
 but there should be a vote on the final draft if we go in this direction.


 On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Lionel Dricot pl...@ploum.net wrote:


 I believe that this discussion is becoming far too bloated.

 How often do we have to deal with offended people? What energy will we
 spend to deal with each case on a case by case basis? Answer is A.

 How much energy will we spend to try to design a law/rule that might fit
 every use case and will be discussed each time we have a case? Answer is
 B.

 I expect A  B by at least one order of magnitude.

 What is exactly the problem here? Sometimes some people are offended by
 the content of planet GNOME? OK, it has always be the case but it's a
 problem. A rare one but still a problem.
 What effect will have deciding of rules, CoC or punishment on that
 particular problem? I don't see how it could have an effect.

 There will still be offending stuff from time to time on pgo. This was
 never a problem in the past as it was handled on a case by case basis.
 Anyway, there are always people offended by everything.


 When you have to type a command once a year, you don't start developing a
 framework that will handle every possible situation. (it has already been
 done, it's called J2EE)

 Cheers,

 Lionel


 On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:36:41 -0700, Stormy Peters
 stormy.pet...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Mukund Sivaraman m...@banu.com
 wrote:
 
 
  I think this is taking it too far. The Code of Conduct being
  presented as a set of guidelines is OK, but it is not wise to make it
  policy.  The GNOME project is not a sect, to control what I can and
  cannot say/do in public.
 
 
  We are talking about GNOME hosted platforms. Planet GNOME,
  blogs.gnome.organd the GNOME mailing lists are all forums we host and
  I think we can (and
  do) expect a certain standard of conduct on them. For example, if
 someone
  started spamming the Foundation list, we would block them.
 
  (Public does not mean you can do whatever you want. In most public
 places
  there are laws you have to follow.)
 
  Stormy
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list



 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Lionel Dricot

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:03:47 +0100, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Lionel Dricot wrote:
 How often do we have to deal with offended people? What energy will we
 spend to deal with each case on a case by case basis? Answer is A.
 
 How much energy will we spend to try to design a law/rule that might
fit
 every use case and will be discussed each time we have a case? Answer
is
 B.
 
 I expect A  B by at least one order of magnitude.
 
 You forget how much energy is lost forever to the community because
 good people walk away after an unpleasant experience?
 
 It is telling that the main reason departing editors give when signing
 off Wikipedia is: Wikipedia is becoming a more hostile environment,
 contends Mr. Ortega, a project manager at Libresoft, a research group at
 the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid. Many people are getting
 burnt out when they have to debate about the contents of certain
 articles again and again.
 
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html
 
 They have concrete measurements of participation, we don't. So we don't
 know how many developers are inactive now, and were formerly active, or
 why they left. But we certainly have anecdotal evidence of people who
 have publicly left because they could no longer work in the GNOME
 environment. I can give you 10 names off the top of my head.
 
 You don't think that's a problem?


I had exactly the same problem with wikipedia :
http://ploum.frimouvy.org/?222-why-i-don-t-contribute-to-wikipedia-anymore


And you know what? The problem is that there is too much rules. So people
feel empowered and don't think anymore about the situation, they stick to
the rule. The more you add rules, the more you will increase hostility
against newcomers.

Do you think that many people were turned out of the GNOME community
because of an hostile experience? I don't think so.  (I might be wrong, I
just never met anybody that has a bad experience).

Wikipedia is probably the project with the most rules and you see what
happens.

Lionel
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 12:05 -0500, john palmieri wrote:

 I'm against an enshrined code of conduct which suddenly kicks you out
 of GNOME, or gets you shunned.  A Terms of Service for hosted sites
 which gets your account unsubscribed for that site might be better if
 it is very narrowly defined, e.g. no spamming, no porn, etc.  However
 as we move into the realm of who offended who it gets dicey and
 predicated on the sentiments of who is making the final call.  We've
 survived the oGalaxys and Bowie Poags of the past and I don't think I
 have seen any worse conduct.  I'm defering to the board if they really
 feel they need an enshrined document but there should be a vote on the
 final draft if we go in this direction.

I (fully) agree with John here.

The lawyer-talk proposal of Jason is a no for me personally.

It's also not the document that I've put my name under when I signed the
Code of Conduct any longer if that amendment is indeed added.


 On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Lionel Dricot pl...@ploum.net
 wrote:
 
 I believe that this discussion is becoming far too bloated.
 
 How often do we have to deal with offended people? What energy
 will we
 spend to deal with each case on a case by case basis? Answer
 is A.
 
 How much energy will we spend to try to design a law/rule that
 might fit
 every use case and will be discussed each time we have a case?
 Answer is B.
 
 I expect A  B by at least one order of magnitude.
 
 What is exactly the problem here? Sometimes some people are
 offended by
 the content of planet GNOME? OK, it has always be the case but
 it's a
 problem. A rare one but still a problem.
 What effect will have deciding of rules, CoC or punishment on
 that
 particular problem? I don't see how it could have an effect.
 
 There will still be offending stuff from time to time on pgo.
 This was
 never a problem in the past as it was handled on a case by
 case basis.
 Anyway, there are always people offended by everything.
 
 
 When you have to type a command once a year, you don't start
 developing a
 framework that will handle every possible situation. (it has
 already been
 done, it's called J2EE)
 
 Cheers,
 
 Lionel
 
 
 On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:36:41 -0700, Stormy Peters
 stormy.pet...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Mukund Sivaraman
 m...@banu.com wrote:
 
 
  I think this is taking it too far. The Code of Conduct
 being
  presented as a set of guidelines is OK, but it is not wise
 to make it
  policy.  The GNOME project is not a sect, to control what I
 can and
  cannot say/do in public.
 
 
  We are talking about GNOME hosted platforms. Planet GNOME,
 
  blogs.gnome.organd the GNOME mailing lists are all forums we
 host and
  I think we can (and
  do) expect a certain standard of conduct on them. For
 example, if
 someone
  started spamming the Foundation list, we would block them.
 
  (Public does not mean you can do whatever you want. In most
 public
 places
  there are laws you have to follow.)
 
  Stormy
 
 
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
 
 
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Mukund Sivaraman
Hi Stormy

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 09:36:41AM -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
 We are talking about GNOME hosted platforms. Planet GNOME,
 blogs.gnome.organd the GNOME mailing lists are all forums we host and
 I think we can (and
 do) expect a certain standard of conduct on them. For example, if someone
 started spamming the Foundation list, we would block them.

Would you agree that things such as filtering for spam (on lists, IRC,
etc.), and removal of badly behaving people already happen, and these
are not specific to GNOME foundation members?  It should be commonsense
to anyone that bad signal/noise will be punished, when other peers
don't like it.

How does requiring GNOME foundation members to sign this document help?

 (Public does not mean you can do whatever you want. In most public places
 there are laws you have to follow.)

Nod, but this is a bad analogy. In public places, one must behave
according to the law, but (having not understood that this applies to
only GNOME infrastructure) I didn't want GNOME to make these rules.

Mukund
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Stormy Peters
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Mukund Sivaraman m...@banu.com wrote:

 Hi Stormy

 On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 09:36:41AM -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
  We are talking about GNOME hosted platforms. Planet GNOME,
  blogs.gnome.organd the GNOME mailing lists are all forums we host and
  I think we can (and
  do) expect a certain standard of conduct on them. For example, if someone
  started spamming the Foundation list, we would block them.

 Would you agree that things such as filtering for spam (on lists, IRC,
 etc.), and removal of badly behaving people already happen, and these
 are not specific to GNOME foundation members?  It should be commonsense
 to anyone that bad signal/noise will be punished, when other peers
 don't like it.


When bad behaviour happens we talk about it a lot but nothing happens. As
Dave says, people (good contributors in many cases) just leave.



 How does requiring GNOME foundation members to sign this document help?


Making it explicit the behaviour we want. Hopefully this would cause greater
self policing and peer control and eliminate the unwanted behaviour.

Stormy
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Dave Neary
Hi,

Lionel Dricot wrote:
 Do you think that many people were turned out of the GNOME community
 because of an hostile experience? I don't think so.  (I might be wrong, I
 just never met anybody that has a bad experience).

Some names of good contributors who have drifted away from GNOME, at
least partly because of the tone of discourse:

Dave Camp
Seth Nickell
Alex Graveley
Telsa Gwynne
Jacob Berkmann
Ross Golder
Daniel Veillard
Joe Shaw
Jorge Castro

Another bunch of people who are still around the free software world,
but who no longer consider themselves GNOME community members - I can't
speak to their motivations, of course:

Nat Friedman
Miguel de Icaza
Glynn Foster
Jeff Waugh
Jody Goldberg
Bill Hanneman
Malcolm Tredinnick
Mark McLoughlin
George Lebl

Some of these people are still members of the foundation, but none of
them have been seen around for a long while.

Acceptable collateral damage for having unfettered freedom of speech?

Cheers,
Dave.
-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
dne...@gnome.org
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Jason D. Clinton
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.orgwrote:

 I (fully) agree with John here.

 The lawyer-talk proposal of Jason is a no for me personally.

 It's also not the document that I've put my name under when I signed the
 Code of Conduct any longer if that amendment is indeed added.


We would put any such official CoC up for a vote; that seems like the only
reasonable course of action.

So can you tell me what you don't like about it and propose some changes
that make it better? Let's move this conversation forward.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 12:13 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
 On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org
 wrote:
 I (fully) agree with John here.
 
 The lawyer-talk proposal of Jason is a no for me personally.
 
 It's also not the document that I've put my name under when I
 signed the
 Code of Conduct any longer if that amendment is indeed added.
 
 We would put any such official CoC up for a vote; that seems like the
 only reasonable course of action. 

Yes

 So can you tell me what you don't like about it and propose some
 changes that make it better? Let's move this conversation forward.

I don't like the entire intention of enforcement.

Cheers,

Philip


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Jason D. Clinton
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.orgwrote:

 I don't like the entire intention of enforcement.


The intention is improving our community quality. The method is what you
disagree with. What alternative method would you propose?
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread john palmieri
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote:

 Hi,

 Lionel Dricot wrote:
  Do you think that many people were turned out of the GNOME community
  because of an hostile experience? I don't think so.  (I might be wrong, I
  just never met anybody that has a bad experience).

 Some names of good contributors who have drifted away from GNOME, at
 least partly because of the tone of discourse:

 Dave Camp
 Seth Nickell
 Alex Graveley
 Telsa Gwynne
 Jacob Berkmann
 Ross Golder
 Daniel Veillard
 Joe Shaw
 Jorge Castro

 Another bunch of people who are still around the free software world,
 but who no longer consider themselves GNOME community members - I can't
 speak to their motivations, of course:

 Nat Friedman
 Miguel de Icaza
 Glynn Foster
 Jeff Waugh
 Jody Goldberg
 Bill Hanneman
 Malcolm Tredinnick
 Mark McLoughlin
 George Lebl

 Some of these people are still members of the foundation, but none of
 them have been seen around for a long while.

 Acceptable collateral damage for having unfettered freedom of speech?

 Cheers,
 Dave.
 --
 Dave Neary
 GNOME Foundation member
 dne...@gnome.org
 ___
 foundation-list mailing list
 foundation-list@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list



We should look at what wikipedia is going through -
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10403467-93.html

I should also point out that we would have most likely lost just as many
members from them just drifting to other projects, and you don't count how
many we have gained from being an open project with a lack of rules.  Let's
be honest here, GNOME isn't a huge game changer, or at least in the last few
years hasn't been.  It is a success by many metrics but these days as we
have become more formal it just doesn't hold the wild west excitement it
once had.  The shedding of some of the top contributors I see as a natural
evolution of a project which allows new blood to rise without being
constrained by old ideas.

I think a bigger issue comes when having a larger community you get more
differing views and it gets tiring to defend design decisions amongst a
louder constituency of those who are not keen to your ideas.  Signal to
noise ratio isn't something you are going to solve with a code of conduct.
I agree that some people tend to use words like idiotic, crap and other
personal attacks when going to the negative but I just choose to see their
views as invalid once they go there.  I feel this is the real issue that is
trying to be solved and I fear that it won't do anything positive, and may
actually lead to being a club to quiet decedent which is why I call for
narrow rules if we do feel it is necessary in the most egregious
circumstances.

--
John (J5) Palmieri
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Dodji Seketeli
Le mercredi 25 nov. 2009 à 10:35:46 (-0700), Stormy Peters a écrit:
 When bad behaviour happens we talk about it a lot but nothing happens.

I respectfully disagree. There have been cases on our lists where people
did act like Dicks, in ebassi's words, and they have been frankly and openly
said so. I would not qualify that as nothing especially on our public forums 
where
everything is archived and searchable. I have at least one case in mind
where the person in question did calm down after that :-)

I'd rather encourage people to speak up when someone is clearly misbehaving
instead of secretely going to ring the bell of the politburo police door.

 Dave says, people (good contributors in many cases) just leave.

Well, that is very arguable. New good contributors join too.
Moreover if you informally compare the tone of the discussions on our forum, I 
am
not sure it's any worse than, say on the linux kernel mailing list. But
at least on the lkml, if you misbehave, you are likely to feel the pressure
quite directly. Are you sure they are loosing more contributors than us
because of that?

Dodji
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Dave Neary
Hi,

Dodji Seketeli wrote:
 Moreover if you informally compare the tone of the discussions on our forum, 
 I am
 not sure it's any worse than, say on the linux kernel mailing list. But
 at least on the lkml, if you misbehave, you are likely to feel the pressure
 quite directly. Are you sure they are loosing more contributors than us
 because of that?

If we're going to aim high, perhaps we could aim for something other
than lkml? Maybe debian-legal or licence-discuss?

Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
dne...@gnome.org
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Behdad Esfahbod

I'm trying to stay out of the discussion at least today.  But:

On 11/25/2009 12:49 PM, Dave Neary wrote:

Hi,

Lionel Dricot wrote:

Do you think that many people were turned out of the GNOME community
because of an hostile experience? I don't think so.  (I might be wrong, I
just never met anybody that has a bad experience).


Some names of good contributors who have drifted away from GNOME, at
least partly because of the tone of discourse:


This is entirely misleading.  at least partly doesn't mean anything.  Is 
this the ten people you said you can name off the top of your head?   Other 
than Telsa and partially Ross, have any other ones expressed to you or 
publicly that they left GNOME at least partly because of the tone of 
discourse?  And when did Jorge drifted away from GNOME?  Last I checked he 
was around just fine.  And Google blackhole had no part?




Dave Camp
Seth Nickell
Alex Graveley
Telsa Gwynne
Jacob Berkmann
Ross Golder
Daniel Veillard
Joe Shaw
Jorge Castro

Another bunch of people who are still around the free software world,
but who no longer consider themselves GNOME community members - I can't
speak to their motivations, of course:

Nat Friedman
Miguel de Icaza
Glynn Foster
Jeff Waugh
Jody Goldberg
Bill Hanneman
Malcolm Tredinnick
Mark McLoughlin
George Lebl

Some of these people are still members of the foundation, but none of
them have been seen around for a long while.


You have an assumption that when in, people are supposed to stay in for the 
rest of their life.  That assumption is wrong.  People come and go all the 
time.  People move away and work on different things.  Either because of their 
job changes or changing personal interest, or for a whole variety of other 
reasons.  If you want to count all the hackers who once hacked on GNOME but 
don't anymore go ahead, but don't use that to wrongly justify your point.



Cheers,
behdad


Acceptable collateral damage for having unfettered freedom of speech?

Cheers,
Dave.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Tristan Van Berkom
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote:
 On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 12:13 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
 On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org
 wrote:
         I (fully) agree with John here.

         The lawyer-talk proposal of Jason is a no for me personally.

         It's also not the document that I've put my name under when I
         signed the
         Code of Conduct any longer if that amendment is indeed added.

 We would put any such official CoC up for a vote; that seems like the
 only reasonable course of action.

 Yes


Please dont make it go that far, from my short experience around here
this topic comes up every time something offensive is said on planet.

Its already very hard on all of us because alot of us have strong feelings
about this subject.

If we push it to a vote, sounds like a sure recipe to kick out the losing
half of the bet, I think we should value more our potential to work as
a team and deal with each others differences somehow specifically
on this point, rather than risking pushing half of us away because
of some silly consolidation of a policy.

Alternative proposal: lets deal with the problem at hand and get our
story straight about what is planet.gnome.org, what can be posted
there (i.e. no porn and vulgar language etc.) and how we can help
to enforce a reasonably exact policy on an exact resource which
is planet.gnome.org.

Cheers,
  -Tristan
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Dodji Seketeli
Le mercredi 25 nov. 2009 à 19:39:13 (+0100), Dave Neary a écrit:
 Hi,
 
 Dodji Seketeli wrote:
  Moreover if you informally compare the tone of the discussions on our 
  forum, I am
  not sure it's any worse than, say on the linux kernel mailing list. But
  at least on the lkml, if you misbehave, you are likely to feel the pressure
  quite directly. Are you sure they are loosing more contributors than us
  because of that?
 
 If we're going to aim high, perhaps we could aim for something other
 than lkml? Maybe debian-legal or licence-discuss?

Well, you can certainly always point to forums where bikeshedding and
personal attacks are frequent. I don't necessarily consider that as aiming
high.

My point with the lkml is that although it can be seen as a tough
place to be, the kernel people don't seem to be flying away crying. I guess
there are other variables to consider in that mix than the easy one of
building a new police or not.

Dodji
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Mukund Sivaraman
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:35:46AM -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
 When bad behaviour happens we talk about it a lot but nothing happens. As
 Dave says, people (good contributors in many cases) just leave.

I know of this first hand in Dave's own case, where he left the GIMP
project due to issues with a contributor.  I was also badly harassed
during that time by this person.

My point is that the current way of handling things is sufficient, and
making foundation members sign a document is not going to change
anything.

  How does requiring GNOME foundation members to sign this document help?
 
 Making it explicit the behaviour we want. Hopefully this would cause greater
 self policing and peer control and eliminate the unwanted behaviour.

This is where the guidelines are good enough. There is no need to sign
documents.  Such issues can be taken care of on a case-by-case basis
locally (to the project) by the project developers, with caution and
restraint.

Also this policing is fine in theory, but I doubt you'd be able to
remove a core contributor who sometimes behaves bluntly towards users. 
There are such GNOME committers (who cannot be removed, for the project
will wither, or they are senior peers who the the developers will not
agree to remove), who are otherwise fine and decent people.  So if you
are implementing this policing at top-level where the foundation
decides, it can either be (1) without prejudice, or (2) skewed.  I feel
it's better to let the projects handle it censorship, ejection, etc. 
locally without policy documents.

Dave, you left the GIMP project because of issues with a contributor. 
Do you really think that person would have been deterred from behaving
so, if he/she had signed such a document?

Mukund
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Behdad Esfahbod

On 11/25/2009 01:50 PM, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:


Alternative proposal: lets deal with the problem at hand and get our
story straight about what is planet.gnome.org, what can be posted
there (i.e. no porn and vulgar language etc.) and how we can help
to enforce a reasonably exact policy on an exact resource which
is planet.gnome.org.


Well, that misses the main issue.  Spam and p0rn are easy, and need no writing 
down.  Where it gets though is criticism, expression of frustration, those 
kind of stuff.  Those have most impact on the community and have caused people 
leave the project for.


To make the discussion more practical, lets take one real incident of the 
past:  Murray's blog re Jeff.  It did not include vulgar language.  It did 
include exaggerations that turned into libel.  Now how does any proposed 
solution deal with that?


If you propose CoC should be enforceable (which I personally strictly oppose: 
when there *is* a law, someone will eventually abuse it.) how do you define 
what be nice means?  Does it mean I shouldn't offend anyone?  Or is it that 
the majority should not find my action was offensive?  Or foundation members 
not find it offensive?  Or general public?  etc etc etc.


I like specific answer to how would your proposed solution would address this 
past incident, if it happened again? from anyone proposing a solution.


And for those who just keep saying again and again that there should be an 
enforcement without ever offering how to get there, well, thanks, we heard 
you many times :).


behdad



Cheers,
   -Tristan


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Jason D. Clinton
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:

 To make the discussion more practical, lets take one real incident of the
 past:  Murray's blog re Jeff.  It did not include vulgar language.  It did
 include exaggerations that turned into libel.  Now how does any proposed
 solution deal with that?

...

 I like specific answer to how would your proposed solution would address
 this past incident, if it happened again? from anyone proposing a solution.


Action: Jeff refers his complaint to the membership committee, MC agrees it
was out of bounds, and sends a warning to Murray (first offence).

End result: Jeff feels vindicated in his belief that he was wronged and is
feels that any further attacks are unlikely as the Foundation (via MC) makes
it clear, publicly, that this attack was out of bounds and that any further
attack of that time will result in actual suspension of privileges.

How does this not improve on what we have now?
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Behdad Esfahbod

On 11/25/2009 02:18 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote:

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org
mailto:beh...@behdad.org wrote:

To make the discussion more practical, lets take one real incident
of the past:  Murray's blog re Jeff.  It did not include vulgar
language.  It did include exaggerations that turned into libel.  Now
how does any proposed solution deal with that?

...

I like specific answer to how would your proposed solution would
address this past incident, if it happened again? from anyone
proposing a solution.


Action: Jeff refers his complaint to the membership committee, MC agrees
it was out of bounds, and sends a warning to Murray (first offence).

End result: Jeff feels vindicated in his belief that he was wronged and
is feels that any further attacks are unlikely as the Foundation (via
MC) makes it clear, publicly, that this attack was out of bounds and
that any further attack of that time will result in actual suspension of
privileges.

How does this not improve on what we have now?


I'm guessing that Jeff would not have bothered to play cop and the end result 
would have been as it is today, plus a first offence for Murray.  I'm not 
sure the end result would have been much different.


behdad
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Jason D. Clinton
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:

 On 11/25/2009 02:18 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote:

 On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org
 mailto:beh...@behdad.org wrote:

To make the discussion more practical, lets take one real incident
of the past:  Murray's blog re Jeff.  It did not include vulgar
language.  It did include exaggerations that turned into libel.  Now
how does any proposed solution deal with that?

 ...

I like specific answer to how would your proposed solution would
address this past incident, if it happened again? from anyone
proposing a solution.


 Action: Jeff refers his complaint to the membership committee, MC agrees
 it was out of bounds, and sends a warning to Murray (first offence).

 End result: Jeff feels vindicated in his belief that he was wronged and
 is feels that any further attacks are unlikely as the Foundation (via
 MC) makes it clear, publicly, that this attack was out of bounds and
 that any further attack of that time will result in actual suspension of
 privileges.

 How does this not improve on what we have now?


 I'm guessing that Jeff would not have bothered to play cop and the end
 result would have been as it is today, plus a first offence for Murray.
  I'm not sure the end result would have been much different.


I understand your point but I do think it would have made Jeff feel a little
better, even if it were someone else that referred the event to the MC.

In any case, I think we are straying slight from what we actually want: to
prevent such attacks from happening in the first place; by explicitly
stating that all GNOME communication forums come with this implicit terms of
use, we decrease the probability of bad behaviour before it ever happens.

That's not to mention never having to have this thread come up again. :)
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Lionel Dricot
Hi Dave,

I thought that those members evolved naturally. Life is changing, so are
interests and priorities. I was a proud Ubuntu member myself before
coming to GNOME. Not because of the Ubuntu community (au contraire) but
because my interests have changed.

It has to be added that, sometimes, some people are very rude themselves
and seem to think that everyone is rude with themselves (it's only a
natural reaction). Sometime, the lack of motivation make you angry and,
as a consequence, you overreact to everything. The hostility of the
community is rarely a cause, it's more a consequence (when it is not
only a bad perception of a vocal minority).

But if you are right and that even some of the names you are giving (all
brilliants people) were turned away because of the hostility of the
community, I'll agree with you that we really have to solve this
problem. (my opinion is of course short-sighted by my lack of experience
in this field)


Lionel


PS : that's bring an interesting point. Is keeping a relatively hostile
community kind of a darwinian selection that allow the community to
replace older people, famous for their achievement 5 years ago but now
less motivated, more conservative, by fresh blood with new ideas?
(that's of course a joke, I don't say that we must keep this kind of
community at all!)


Le mercredi 25 novembre 2009 à 18:49 +0100, Dave Neary a écrit :
 Hi,
 
 Lionel Dricot wrote:
  Do you think that many people were turned out of the GNOME community
  because of an hostile experience? I don't think so.  (I might be wrong, I
  just never met anybody that has a bad experience).
 
 Some names of good contributors who have drifted away from GNOME, at
 least partly because of the tone of discourse:
 
 Dave Camp
 Seth Nickell
 Alex Graveley
 Telsa Gwynne
 Jacob Berkmann
 Ross Golder
 Daniel Veillard
 Joe Shaw
 Jorge Castro
 
 Another bunch of people who are still around the free software world,
 but who no longer consider themselves GNOME community members - I can't
 speak to their motivations, of course:
 
 Nat Friedman
 Miguel de Icaza
 Glynn Foster
 Jeff Waugh
 Jody Goldberg
 Bill Hanneman
 Malcolm Tredinnick
 Mark McLoughlin
 George Lebl
 
 Some of these people are still members of the foundation, but none of
 them have been seen around for a long while.
 
 Acceptable collateral damage for having unfettered freedom of speech?
 
 Cheers,
 Dave.


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Lucas,

On Wed 25 Nov 2009 13:48, Lucas Rocha luc...@gnome.org writes:

 In the context of GNOME Foundation, it's really hard to argue about
 how we expect our members to behave if there is no official guidelines
 that members are supposed to comply with. The GNOME Code of Conduct[1]
 has been serving very well

It's a very nice document, a lovely credo.

 we'd like to make it an official document

Sounds like a good idea, to give it more moral authority.

 that new Foundation
 members are expected to explicitly agree[2] with before being
 accepted. This way we'll have a common ground for dealing with certain
 conflict situations and avoid trying to base our discussions on
 guidelines that certain members haven't explicitly agreed on.

I realize you haven't really touched on punishment, but since it's
come up in other parts of this thread:

The board already has the power to expell or suspend a member who fails
to observe the rules of conduct promulgated from time to time by the
Board (Bylaws VI 7(c)). But that's a bit extreme of course.

It's good that we are concerned about maintaining our high level of
discourse, but I am surprised at the clamoring by some for teeth
behind the code of conduct. There are teeth enough already. And in the
case of any particular venue, there is typically a responsible party --
p.g.o. with its maintainers (as you know :), mailing lists with their
respective maintainers, etc. Maintainers should communicate their
expectations to their contributors and users. People who don't like that
can find another project/venue.

It's only IRC and DDL that are really the outliers, it seems, and there
there is enough social pressure, combined with ignore/kill lists, that I
don't really see all the fuss.

Finally, a quote from the foundation charter:

  [T]he foundation can have no real powers of enforcement; compliance
  with foundation decision should be an act of good-faith. If we've lost
  consensus to the point where we're regularly forcibly ejecting people
  from the foundation and co-opting their projects, we're sunk anyway.

Happy hacking,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Behdad Esfahbod

On 11/25/2009 05:13 PM, Andy Wingo wrote:

It's only IRC and DDL that are really the outliers, it seems, and there
there is enough social pressure, combined with ignore/kill lists, that I
don't really see all the fuss.


And foundation list?  Just saying each maintainer should solve this on their 
own does not make the problem go away, it just puts the burden on multiple 
people.  And then when those maintainers fail to react, the issue typically 
escalates to the board, and we're back to square 1 again.  So, however we 
solve this, it's good to solve it on the foundation level once.


behdad
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Behdad Esfahbod

On 11/25/2009 02:33 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote:


I understand your point but I do think it would have made Jeff feel a
little better, even if it were someone else that referred the event to
the MC.

In any case, I think we are straying slight from what we actually want:
to prevent such attacks from happening in the first place; by explicitly
stating that all GNOME communication forums come with this implicit
terms of use, we decrease the probability of bad behaviour before it
ever happens.


Well, what we want is really:

  1. Our communication channels maintaining a upbeat tune and high 
signal-to-noise,


  2. Attract people and not lose many.

Now one way to achieve this is policing, but that's hardly the only way.

What I want to propose / see instead is to make it more clear that:

  1. People speak on their own behalf, not on behalf of GNOME.  Unless they 
ARE talking on behalf of GNOME (say, board, release team, etc),


  2. Like it or not, there exist people out there who are rude, can be 
offensive, etc.  They are out there in real life, and they are there in 
cyberspace.  Just know who they are and ignore them.


  3. Most of the time, a vocal minority does not speak for the majority.

  4. In any kind of discussion and/or medium, one should learn who's words 
matter.  Is he the maintainer of the module?  Is he a developer?  Does he 
generally offer useful insight?  Does he know what he's talking about?  Do 
others take this person seriously?  When you learn to ignore the noise, life 
is beautiful again.



I also like to see two more ideas added to CoC:

  - Learn to agree to disagree.

  - Criticize ideas, not people presenting them.


Back to the Murray case, with my recommendation, everything would have 
happened the way it did.  Only that we'd try to make it more clear (on PGO in 
this case) that his views do not represent GNOME's or the majority of GNOME 
contributors.  Just need to accept that it sometimes happens.  What I found 
more disappointing in that particular incident was the flow of +1 and 
Thanks you messages Murray received on PGO.  If that's really who we are, 
well, why police it?  Like what I read once: Please be a dick if that's who 
you are.



Anyway, that's my feeling about the subject.

behdad




That's not to mention never having to have this thread come up again. :)


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Alan Cox
1. People speak on their own behalf, not on behalf of GNOME.  Unless they 
 ARE talking on behalf of GNOME (say, board, release team, etc),

On things like the planet that can be addressed by suitable tags and
styling (as could inappropriate content - if there is a 'rant filter'
option or similar)

4. In any kind of discussion and/or medium, one should learn who's words 
 matter.  Is he the maintainer of the module?  Is he a developer?  Does he 
 generally offer useful insight?  Does he know what he's talking about?  Do 
 others take this person seriously?  When you learn to ignore the noise, life 
 is beautiful again.

With the kernel hat on this is why LWN and Jon Masters summaries are so
important. They distill the relevant material from the bloodbath that is
linux-kernel (and which btw does put off a lot of people and cause big
issues with some cultural groups). Please btw don't use Linux kernel as a
shining example of why rules are not needed. The kernel works despite not
because of the list attitude. Also there may be no code of conduct but
certain people have at times been taken aside at conferences and
educated on how they are coming across.

- Learn to agree to disagree.
 
- Criticize ideas, not people presenting them.
 

And perhaps also - Remmeber that different cultures have different
attitudes, styles and touchy subjects.

Alan
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Andy Wingo
Hi Behdad,

On Wed 25 Nov 2009 23:19, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org writes:

 On 11/25/2009 05:13 PM, Andy Wingo wrote:
 It's only IRC and DDL that are really the outliers, it seems, and there
 there is enough social pressure, combined with ignore/kill lists, that I
 don't really see all the fuss.

 And foundation list?  Just saying each maintainer should solve this on
 their own does not make the problem go away, it just puts the burden on
 multiple people.

You're right that there's this case too, and I'm sure there's more. I do
think that officially endorsing the CoC (ideally via some kind of
referendum) would be nice as an overall statement of this is what we
believe, for the reasons Lucas gave.

But on the enforcement side, I guess what I'd like is for this feedback
mechanism to be on a more human scale. In the end, maintaining a project
is as much a social task as a technical one. Maintainers are there
because they merit it; they are the heart of GNOME, much more so than
the board. Their views don't need procedures to enforce themselves.

I'm not sure what incidents are being discussed specifically here, but
if they are about the planet, I don't think the maintainers need to
exercise board power.

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Jason D. Clinton
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:

 I also like to see two more ideas added to CoC:

  - Learn to agree to disagree.

  - Criticize ideas, not people presenting them.


 Back to the Murray case, with my recommendation, everything would have
 happened the way it did.  Only that we'd try to make it more clear (on PGO
 in this case) that his views do not represent GNOME's or the majority of
 GNOME contributors.  Just need to accept that it sometimes happens.  What I
 found more disappointing in that particular incident was the flow of +1
 and Thanks you messages Murray received on PGO.  If that's really who we
 are, well, why police it?  Like what I read once: Please be a dick if
 that's who you are.


Well, I withdraw my proposed amendment to the CoC as there has been no
support for it and I'm not entirely happy with it as written, either. But,
while I agree that the above would be welcome additions to the CoC, I don't
think this helps us answer what to do when the board is contacted.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

2009-11-25 Thread Behdad Esfahbod

On 11/25/2009 05:57 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote:


Well, I withdraw my proposed amendment to the CoC as there has been no
support for it and I'm not entirely happy with it as written, either.
But, while I agree that the above would be welcome additions to the CoC,
I don't think this helps us answer what to do when the board is contacted.


What I'm suggesting is that when the board is contacted, it would respond: 
Not our job.   We won't intervene.


behdad
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list