Please Note: this bug is for trustees, and should only be handled by trustees, not comrel nor Council. See end for further. The following email is the only communication I had of this. From experience, comrel (aka proctors) are meant to discuss the issue with the person concerned, _before_ proceeding with "disciplinary" action. In this case, I understand that because I mentioned William's blindness, this was taken as an attack on him for being blind. Nothing could have been further from the truth: allowances are certainly to be made for disability, just like every other source of discrimination, in every equal ops policy I've ever read. In fact I showed that bug comment to several friends, at least 3 of whom are Gentoo developers, at the time I made it. Not one mentioned the so-called attack on WilliamH's blindness, since there wasn't one; all I got was discussion about why I didn't raise it with him, which I had several times, and then told I shouldn't "rage-quit" due to frustration with someone's clear lack of ability in project leadership, but talk it out. At the time I said that's what I expected to happen, since I felt sure someone from devrel would be in touch to try to resolve the issue, but that raising said incompetence in no uncertain terms was the only way to force a discussion. Either that or simply forget about the months of time wasted, but at least make my position clear before I write off that time. Whether you agree with my assessment of WilliamH's inability, or not, is irrelevant. I made no attack on WilliamH for being blind: I simply explained the background to anyone external, who is not part of the project, or might read the bug in the future. It's fine to make a concession for blindness, as it is for any other disability: to discuss that is not an attack on anyone. All the subsequent brouha shows is the prejudice of your staff, in assuming any discussion of disability must be such an attack. In any event, correct process was not followed at all, in that I remained unaware of such a nonsensical interpretation of my words til very recently. I still have not looked at that bug since my last comment on it: hwoarang locked my out of it summarily, so judgement was delivered, and carried out, without even discussing with me the blatant misinterpretation of my words. Right to reply doesn't even figure. Further I found the backward prejudice on show, when NeddySeagoon told me that was the pretext for this "action", intensely offensive. I have never displayed any such prejudice towards the disabled, and in fact have regularly confronted such both on IRC and on the forums. To be labelled such by people who clearly have zero idea about Disability Rights, is deeply wounding. In summary, Chandras did not follow correct procedure, and nor did whoever he consulted within his improperly-constituted "team". Additionally, the rush to label this an ongoing CoC problem, and to drag up an incident from over 5 years ago, which I was not told was a CoC violation in these terms, when combined with the exclusionary process, indicates a clear agenda to remove my voice from Gentoo media. Why else would you not bother to even discuss the problem with the party you intend to ban, as has always been done on every Gentoo medium. Again, I must point out that the incident from several years ago was not presented to me as a CoC "strike"; afair it was from the time the CoC was first coming into being, and was a concession to make it easier to temporarily-ban McCreesh, as I had responded in kind to him. Secondly such strikes are supposed to be given for ongoing bad behaviour across media. How does this trumped-up violation qualify? Nor indeed would that last one, since it was about cooling down one volatile mailing-list at a time when flamewars were a practically daily occurrence. So this ban was both incorrectly handled, and incorrect substantively. Further it should never have been a CoC strike unless a) it turned out to be true, which it clearly was not, and b) I was unrepentant for such odious behaviour as has been maliciously attributed to me, and c) I continued to carry on like that, which as has been shown was not even happening in the first place. The temporary mute on a mailing-list, was not such a strike either; simply review the history of proctors and you will see that a CoC strike is much more than a temporary +q. I am filing this bug so that I can have the question marks over my account removed, and so that trustees can take responsibility for matters that are clearly outside the Council's purview, and should never have been coopted by them. hwoarang's handling of this doesn't even begin to count as correct process, so afaic he should be removed from any such position ASAP; he clearly has no idea what he is doing, beyond following the letter of written policies he does not understand. In any event comrel is broken, by design. Trustees, please act to fix it, since it is vital to the continued health of the distro, and is self-evidently not a matter for your technical sub-committee. Your forum-mods are much, much more competent than this, but for instance jmbsvicetto, a developer, does not handle issues in such a blatantly partial manner. Whoever was involved with this issue at the comrel side should be ashamed of themselves, and removed from post, before you go on to fix the structural problems, which usually takes time. === From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> To: slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk Cc: comrel@gentoo.org Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:30:32 +0100 Subject: 48h ban from Gentoo's bugzilla Dear Steve, Due to the way you attacked William[1] you are now banned from bugzilla for 48h. This is the second time we ban you from Gentoo's public discussion media. Per ComRel's policy[2] it's possible to face long-term or even permanent bans if more incidents like this one are brought to our attention in the future. [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=468396#c11 [2] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel#Disciplinary_Actions_for_direct_CoC_violations -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang Please Note: this bug should only be handled by trustees, not comrel nor Council, due to the rampant conflicts of interest inherent in the comrel "structure", which has no mandate at all for its existence, being nothing more than a bastardisation of proctors. The area is itself outside the Council's remit, so they are acting ultra vires in taking the responsibility on themselves, quite apart from the fact that the person responsible for this issue is a Council member (so the whole Council must recuse itself, under the principles of Conflict of Interest. In case that's unknown to whoever's reading this, it means they are closely associated with that party, since they work with him on a regular basis, in effect as part of a clique.) Note that the structural conflicts are present no matter who is involved. It is a bug *about* comrel, not a comrel bug; the only people qualified to handle this bug are the trustees, so please reassign to them.
As far as I understand GLEP 39, the appeal against action of comrel member is to be handled by the remaining comrel members. I don't see how Trustees are related at all here since it's not a Foundation problem.
I didn't make the decision alone I only communicated to you. So nothing to do here.
Apologies, I may not have been clear about this. It seems you have a problem with what comrel decided. Trustees have no say on this unfortunately. It is outside their domain of responsibilities. Normally, as described here[1], Council could get involved only to revert what comrel decided. But taking this to the council 6 months after the incident, well, there is nothing to revert. Perhaps you are interested in contacting comrel to express your opinion and we you can discuss this with them in a civilized manner without involving irrelevant parties? [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel#Resolution_and_Appeal
I'm reopening this bug after talking to Markos and after having talked earlier with Steve about this bug. I'm assigning this bug to trustees, so that trustees can address this query by a community member and to make it clear that we do not hide issues and are not trying to bury this complaint. It is up to trustees how they want to deal with this bug, possibly closing it as invalid per the reasons already stated, or raising a discussion about the structure and appeal process of comrel. PS - I will add my own opinion about this issue on a separate comment to keep it apart from the reopening of the bug. PPS - Just to clear any misunderstandings, the process linked in the last comment by Markos, applies specifically for developer conflicts.
(In reply to Steve L from comment #0) > Please Note: this bug is for trustees, and should only be handled by > trustees, not comrel nor Council. See end for further. Your request here is why I've reopened this bug and will let Trustees address it. > The following email is the only communication I had of this. From > experience, comrel (aka proctors) are meant to discuss the issue with the > person concerned, _before_ proceeding with "disciplinary" action. First let me start by making it clear that the banning was a decision by the ComRel team and not a solitary action by Markos. In the internal ComRel discussions that followed after your ban, the team agreed that in future such actions should always be done after trying to contact the user and clearing any misunderstandings. This was also one of the first incidents that the new ComRel team dealt with and the first user conflict the involved members dealt with. In the past, user conflicts have been mostly dealt with by me or Alec. At that point, we hadn't had a chance to share our experience with the newer members and so they did the best they could with the knowledge they had. > In this case, I understand that because I mentioned William's blindness, > this was taken as an attack on him for being blind. I can assure you that a few people talked to me about this as they felt you were being a bigot. IIRC, I talked to you about this at that point to make sure I understood what you meant. I believe I expressed to those that talked to me that I didn't thought you were attacking William because of his disability, but that you had a long disagreement and that I thought you had "burst out". > In summary, Chandras did not follow correct procedure, and nor did whoever > he consulted within his improperly-constituted "team". Additionally, the > rush to label this an ongoing CoC problem, and to drag up an incident from > over 5 years ago, which I was not told was a CoC violation in these terms, > when combined with the exclusionary process, indicates a clear agenda to > remove my voice from Gentoo media. Why else would you not bother to even > discuss the problem with the party you intend to ban, as has always been > done on every Gentoo medium. As expressed above, not talking to you before the ban was a mistake by the team. There is no agenda to "silence" you or to remove you from the community. As we talked earlier today and you're fully aware, I was the one that applied the ban 5 years ago. That ban was the result of a UserRel decision and wasn't a "CoC strike". I, for one, believe that "sentence" has now "expired". To put things in perspective, we're talking about a 48 hours ban from bugzilla - that was not a "serious penalty". I understand from your comments and our talk, that you want to clear the air and make it clear you have no issue with disabilities and are not a bigot. I don't consider you to be one, but please feel free to email comrel about this so we can clear any misunderstandings. The above isn't meant in any way to silence this bug you opened for trustees, but please take my word that there's no agenda to silence you or remove you from this community - not from ComRel or any team I'm a member of. > I am filing this bug so that I can have the question marks over my account > removed, and so that trustees can take responsibility for matters that are > clearly outside the Council's purview, and should never have been coopted by > them. > In any event comrel is broken, by design. Trustees, please act to fix it, > since it is vital to the continued health of the distro, and is > self-evidently not a matter for your technical sub-committee. > Please Note: this bug should only be handled by trustees, not comrel nor > Council, due to the rampant conflicts of interest inherent in the comrel > "structure", which has no mandate at all for its existence, being nothing > more than a bastardisation of proctors. The area is itself outside the > Council's remit, so they are acting ultra vires in taking the responsibility > on themselves, quite apart from the fact that the person responsible for > this issue is a Council member (so the whole Council must recuse itself, > under the principles of Conflict of Interest. In case that's unknown to > whoever's reading this, it means they are closely associated with that > party, since they work with him on a regular basis, in effect as part of a > clique.) Note that the structural conflicts are present no matter who is > involved. We had the chance to talk before, but I want to take the time to reply here about some of the issues you raise regarding structure and appeals - the issues you're directing to Trustees. As I've explained, at no point in the history of Gentoo were the Trustees responsible for recruitment, retirement, conflict resolution or the management of the developers working in the distribution. ComRel is the result of the merger of DevRel and UserRel. DevRel has been dealing with these issues forever, even when the Foundation was non-working, and never was the membership of the project subject to Foundation rules. To this day, the membership of the distribution and Foundation is a separate issue. Even though there is a reasonable overlap between the two, which I believe is healthy and desirable, they aren't the same. Ever since the Council was created, it was nominated the appeal body for DevRel disciplinary actions. After the merge, it's natural that the Council remains the appeal body for disciplinary actions of ComRel. Regarding your comment about the "conflict of interest" by being both a ComRel and Council member, we've long been marking any DevRel (now ComRel) member that runs for Council. At one point we had 3 or 4 DevRel members in Council (including me). Currently, there's only 1. As such, I don't think there's a significant "conflict of interest". > Council, due to the rampant conflicts of interest inherent in the comrel > "structure", which has no mandate at all for its existence, being nothing > more than a bastardisation of proctors. I'm repeating the above so I can reply to it directly. There's an error in the above comment. ComRel is the result of a merge between DevRel and UserRel that was proposed and decided by both teams and had no involvement of any outside team - including Council. Both DevRel and UserRel predated Proctors by a few years. The Proctors team was created specifically to address the CoC approved by the Council. It was meant as a quick reaction team to clean our communication mediums, that were at the time riddle with flaming, that prevented escalation by being able to issue short-term bans and by trying to "encourage" the best in everyone's behaviour. DevRel had been taking disciplinary actions for years and had at that point already dealt with some of the "worst cases" in Gentoo's history. So, Trustees please address this issue as you see fit. Steve, if you want to clear any misunderstandings, please email ComRel.
(In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #5) > First let me start by making it clear that the banning was a decision by the > ComRel team and not a solitary action by Markos. > In the internal ComRel discussions that followed after your ban, the team > agreed that in future such actions should always be done after trying to > contact the user and clearing any misunderstandings. .. > As expressed above, not talking to you before the ban was a mistake by the > team. Glad we've got it straight that the process was inherently flawed, and indeed a *mistake*. It wasn't even the beginnings of due process, as two minutes thought would have told anyone, and nowhere near the level of your work. Getting that straight is indeed something to sort out, giving the lie to comment #2. > As we talked earlier today and you're fully aware, I was the one that > applied the ban 5 years ago. That ban was the result of a UserRel decision > and wasn't a "CoC strike". Thank you for stating that for the record. > I, for one, believe that "sentence" has now "expired". That's a separate further issue, and I agree that there should be some of statute of limitations on such matters. However that's irrelevant to my case, since as you said it wasn't a CoC strike in the first place. Definitely something to raise in the wider discussion, however. > To put things in perspective, we're talking about a 48 hours ban from > bugzilla - that was not a "serious penalty". Yet it was presented to me as exactly that: a CoC strike, and the 2nd of 3, meaning that as far as comrel were concerned, one more and I could be permanently excluded. Which is where this point of yours falls: > There is no agenda to "silence" you or to remove you from the > community. Only it was a flawed process, the earlier CoC strike wasn't, and nor was this. Yet the lead of comrel (who I understand is no longer the lead, but clearly still needs an attitude adjustment, based on his initial flip reaction) moved straight to pronouncing the verdict of "one more strike and you're out". Even if we put it down to rank amateurism, your only defence so far, you must acknowledge how it is reasonable to infer such an agenda, given the actions taken in clear contrast to your assessment, and the indisputable lack of transparency, let alone any conception of simple fair play. Hence my statement that anyone involved with that decision should be ashamed of themselves, and never even been allowed to make such decisions, and afaic should resign from comrel or w/e part of it this is. Forum mods are much *much* better at this kind of thing. > > In this case, I understand that because I mentioned William's blindness, > > this was taken as an attack on him for being blind. > > I can assure you that a few people talked to me about this as they felt you > were being a bigot. IIRC, I talked to you about this at that point to make > sure I understood what you meant. No, we didn't discuss the comment about his blindness that I recall: I recall our discussion being about WilliamH's incompetence, and telling you that you know I don't come to that kind of conclusion lightly, and further that it's a professional conclusion based on a) trying to help out with openrc and b) seeing user after user leave disgruntled, in contrast to how zac always did things in #-portage. Recent review of the commit history made me realise he's simply incapable of leading the project; again in my professional opinion, and all about the work, not about the person. I also recall telling you the reason it took so long to reach the end of my tether is because I actually quite like him on a personal basis, which clouded my perception of his inability. It was only NeddySeagoon who told me that "prejudice" was an even a factor, and that a couple of months ago, which took a while to get past. AFAIC all it shows is the prejudice of people who've never actually dealt with these issues IRL. > I believe I expressed to those that talked > to me that I didn't thought you were attacking William because of his > disability, but that you had a long disagreement and that I thought you had > "burst out". Yes the "rage quit" another of your developers labelled it as. But there was NEVER any attack related to disability, it was a mere aside, explaining why we might make concessions to WilliamH's blindness in communicating with him on a live-text medium, that usually moves quite quickly. Again, where I come from that is seen as basic to EOPs, and discussion of it is nothing to avoid; it's just part of the background, same as someone's moving to Portugal this week or whatever. > I understand from your comments and our talk, that you want to clear the air > and make it clear you have no issue with disabilities and are not a bigot. I > don't consider you to be one, but please feel free to email comrel about > this so we can clear any misunderstandings. Well getting it on the record as above, is fine: please open this bug to the public as it was never meant as a comrel bug, and transparency dictates that my replies be on the record, such that I can link the other bug to this. I am concerned that you appear to think you raised this with me, and that you seem to be implying above that the parenthesised aside was an attack, only a "bursting out." It categorically was nothing of the kind. The anger was in my not holding back in expressing my opinion of his work, and the awful loss of effort and focus that resulted. > > I am filing this bug so that I can have the question marks over my account > > removed, and so that trustees can take responsibility for matters that are > > clearly outside the Council's purview, and should never have been coopted by > > them. > We had the chance to talk before, but I want to take the time to reply here > about some of the issues you raise regarding structure and appeals - the > issues you're directing to Trustees. <snip for brevity> How you got to where you are isn't anywhere near as important as making sure you're doing things the right way. That you still appear not to see the conflict of interest inherent in having appeals against developer social-stupidity go to the developers' elected representatives, whom they work with on a daily basis, is worrying. Further, you should also acknowledge that social matters are wholly outside the remit of a technical sub-committee of trustees, that has no independent existence as far as the real-world is concerned. The developers don't want responsibility for such things: that's why Council is strictly about technical matters. > > Council, due to the rampant conflicts of interest inherent in the comrel > > "structure", which has no mandate at all for its existence, being nothing > > more than a bastardisation of proctors. > > I'm repeating the above so I can reply to it directly. > There's an error in the above comment. ComRel is the result of a merge > between DevRel and UserRel that was proposed and decided by both teams and > had no involvement of any outside team - including Council. > Both DevRel and UserRel predated Proctors by a few years. The Proctors team > was created specifically to address the CoC approved by the Council. It was > meant as a quick reaction team to clean our communication mediums, that were > at the time riddle with flaming, that prevented escalation by being able to > issue short-term bans and by trying to "encourage" the best in everyone's > behaviour. DevRel had been taking disciplinary actions for years and had at > that point already dealt with some of the "worst cases" in Gentoo's history. > Fine so comrel is an amorphous blob that has way too many responsibilities, such that constituent parts can't really be handled properly, since your organisation appears unable to separate them. In this case, the proctors element is not a technical matter, nor can it ever be. It does affect wider relations, so it comes under Trustees under the traditional split however you cut it. It's not a Council area, by any stretch of the imagination. Again, please open this bug to non-comrel, and thanks for your time in handling this awful lapse in standards. If anyone else has any flip one-liners, keep them to yourselves, especially if you cba to read the substantive complaint, nor spend a moment to understand it; ask somebody with more nous.
(In reply to Steve L from comment #6) > (In reply to Jorge Mantuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #5) > > > To put things in perspective, we're talking about a 48 hours ban from > > bugzilla - that was not a "serious penalty". > > Yet it was presented to me as exactly that: a CoC strike, and the 2nd of 3, > meaning that as far as comrel were concerned, one more and I could be > permanently excluded. > > Which is where this point of yours falls: > > There is no agenda to "silence" you or to remove you from the > > community. > > Only it was a flawed process, the earlier CoC strike wasn't, and nor was > this. Yet the lead of comrel (who I understand is no longer the lead, but > clearly still needs an attitude adjustment, based on his initial flip > reaction) moved straight to pronouncing the verdict of "one more strike and > you're out". What I'm trying to do here is to assure you I'm not aware of any agenda inside any team I work on, to silence or remove you. I'm giving you my word. It's up to you to decide whether you believe in my word or not. Given how long we've been talking online and all we've been through, I'd like to think I've given you reason to trust me - but, alas, I can't control your opinion. > Even if we put it down to rank amateurism, your only defence so far, you > must acknowledge how it is reasonable to infer such an agenda, given the > actions taken in clear contrast to your assessment, and the indisputable > lack of transparency, let alone any conception of simple fair play. I understand that to you or someone outside, that the process might seem biased and or unclear. That's why I've kept this bug open so that we can clear any misunderstanding and address your concerns, while trying to show you that there was no "bad faith". > Hence my statement that anyone involved with that decision should be ashamed > of themselves, and never even been allowed to make such decisions, and afaic > should resign from comrel or w/e part of it this is. Forum mods are much > *much* better at this kind of thing. As you were the one mentioning me in particular, I'd like to recall you that although I'm still a forum moderator, most of my "official" interactions with you, were done with my UserRel hat on. I didn't use the DevRel hat in those interactions as they were about user conflicts (be it with other users or developers). So, please consider my actions as the actions of an official UserRel, Devrel and now Comrel member and not only as a Forum Moderator. The unofficial interactions were done with my Gentoo community member hat, as well as all the other hats I've been wearing through time. > > I understand from your comments and our talk, that you want to clear the air > > and make it clear you have no issue with disabilities and are not a bigot. I > > don't consider you to be one, but please feel free to email comrel about > > this so we can clear any misunderstandings. > > Well getting it on the record as above, is fine: please open this bug to the > public as it was never meant as a comrel bug, and transparency dictates that > my replies be on the record, such that I can link the other bug to this. My apologies for that. I was under the impression the bug was open. I never meant to keep it private - that's the whole reason I talked to Markos and reopened it. > I am concerned that you appear to think you raised this with me, and that > you seem to be implying above that the parenthesised aside was an attack, > only a "bursting out." It categorically was nothing of the kind. The anger > was in my not holding back in expressing my opinion of his work, and the > awful loss of effort and focus that resulted. I thought that your tone was a "burst out". IIRC, (you have to excuse me but this happened some time ago and my memory is a bit fuzzy about some details), what I tried to convey to the others was that I felt your tone and what I considered to be a "lashing out", but not an attack on disabilities, was caused by a long running disagreement and with you feeling impotent about getting through William and convincing him of your opinion. I believe William did talk to me about some of your replies in the mls and that I shared my opinion with him. > > We had the chance to talk before, but I want to take the time to reply here > > about some of the issues you raise regarding structure and appeals - the > > issues you're directing to Trustees. > <snip for brevity> > > How you got to where you are isn't anywhere near as important as making sure > you're doing things the right way. That you still appear not to see the > conflict of interest inherent in having appeals against developer > social-stupidity go to the developers' elected representatives, whom they > work with on a daily basis, is worrying. My comment about "conflict of interest" was directly related to your comment (suggestion?) that there was a conflict by a significant number of Council members also being ComRel members. What I tried to show was that the number of common members is now far smaller than it was sometime ago. I didn't got into it in the previous reply for brevity, but I don't agree with the argument that someone being a member of ComRel makes that person unable to deal with an appeal to Council. I think it's up to each of those members to evaluate if and how they can deal with the appeal. As a council member, I had to deal with appeals from DevRel. I didn't feel that by being a DevRel member I had to immediately "excuse myself". It all had to do with my involvement as a DevRel member in the incident, my ability to remain impartial and by making sure I made the best decision from each team perspective. Arguing that Council can't deal with an appeal for a decision I and others at ComRel made, just because I deal with Council members daily, is the same as implying that I can't make a decision about a user conflict because I deal with them regularly. As we've kept a long standing interaction over the years, that would mean I couldn't deal with any user conflict involving you! I believe, that quite the contrary, I'm likely one of the best ComRel members to deal with any complaint involving you. > Further, you should also acknowledge that social matters are wholly outside > the remit of a technical sub-committee of trustees, that has no independent > existence as far as the real-world is concerned. The developers don't want > responsibility for such things: that's why Council is strictly about > technical matters. This is another "source of contention". I know that some like to see the Council as a Technical sub-committee of the Trustees. I disagree with that view. Even if it pleases outside viewers by providing a structure closer to the ones they're used to, in my view, Council and Trustees are two entities that should work together, but they are separate and neither has "control" over the other. Yes, I know the Trustees could "seize" control over the IP and assets through legal means, but if that were ever to happen, I strongly suspect they would lose the distribution - they would retain the name, but risk losing the people behind the name. Whether people like it or not, the distribution and the Foundation have grown apart and on parallel routes. I'm purposely a Foundation member and do honestly believe it's in everyone's best interest that the two work together for the fostering of the community. However, I don't accept that Trustees should or can, control the people behind the distribution. The Council is the elected body of those working in the distribution. The Trustees are the elected members of the Foundation. I've been voting for both for a long time and do have much respect for current and past Trustees, but I'm not voting for them to control the distribution - that's why I vote for Council.
The Trustees can speak for their opinion, but here are a few of my random thoughts insofar as conflicts of interest and appeals go. Note that I'm not speaking to the particular incident at hand - if it is appealed to Council I'll certainly be involved, but I'll withhold specific judgment until there is a fair and full process. Regarding conflicts of interest, I hear this term tossed around a lot, and it is applied to situations where I don't think any legal body would apply it. Having an opinion on a subject is not a conflict of interest. Having an interest insofar as you are part of the organization you're representing is the exact opposite of a conflict of interest. The fact that I'm associated with Gentoo can in no way be a conflict of interest when I'm taking some kind of action on behalf of Gentoo. As far as appeals go, the Council is supposed to represent the Gentoo developer community, which is of course a subset of the entire Gentoo community. If somebody gets into a situation where they've basically ticked off the majority of Gentoo developers such that the Council is going to tend to side against them, then I really don't know what to say on their behalf. I buy that developers aren't the only contributors to the community, and I'm all for doing things to make non-developers more welcome. However, we really can't go around ticking off all the devs - when it comes down to it they're on average putting in a lot more effort and they're the ones that make things happen. If it is a choice between having half the devs not want to participate on a list, and maybe having a few non-devs not want to participate on the list, it is pretty obvious which outcome is better for Gentoo. Still, you have to be reasonably level-headed to get elected to either the Council or the Trustees. Neither body is particularly known for rash decisions - if anything I tend to get the sense that people are more concerned about not taking more of a leadership role. Nobody is eager to permanently ban anybody from anything. So, I really don't see any reason for panic. Even if you have personal disagreements with individuals on the Council I wouldn't assume that they're going to automatically side against you. I know that when I'm acting in an official capacity I tend to be more conservative in general, and when I'm interacting with fellow Council members (and previously Trustee members) that interaction has only helped me to moderate any impulsiveness. The relationship between the Council/Trustees has been complex, though I think there has been steady progress as the Foundation activity level has increased in recent years. Personally I'm a proponent of keeping their constituencies as close as possible simply to avoid the possibility of conflict - as has already been pointed out a push-comes-to-shove dispute between them is probably just going to destroy "Gentoo" at least in name, and probably set everybody back a year just trying to re-organize (if many devs forked, just how long would it take to build a new mirror network, rebuild infra, get sponsors, pick a name, establish, etc). Down that road lies madness, so I'm all for anything that makes the distro, Foundation, and the e.V. act as one either legally or effectively. Final note, Steve, I know you've been a long-time contributor, and if you ever just want to chat feel free to contact me however you like. I really hate to see conflict between any long-standing contributors, but that's just me...
As we explained earlier, this was a team decision not mine and I am very offended that my name is still explicitly on the title. It seems you have a problem with comrel, so as Jorge suggested please get in touch with us. If you have a problem with me, bugzilla is not the place to solve 1-vs-1 conflicts. Feel free to contact me.
DISCLOSURE: I know Steve L in real life. DISCLOSURE: At the time of this incident I was a trustee of the Gentoo Foudation Inc. This comment is made by me as an individual, not on behalf of Gentoo Foudation Inc. or even with my trustee hat on. There are several issues here, which are worth summarising. 1. There appears to be a "3 strikes and you are out" rule. In comrels strike counter, how many strikes has Steve L scored to date? Integer only responses please. 2. Was this particular incident dealt with by the correct body(ies) according to the rules in force at the time My impression from reading this bug, is that it was. I will not comment on the details. 3. Could the Gentoo Meta-structure be improved. That is outside the scope of this bug, so no comment.
(In reply to Roy Bamford from comment #10) > 1. There appears to be a "3 strikes and you are out" rule. > In comrels strike counter, how many strikes has Steve L scored to date? > Integer only responses please. To address this question, let me get back to the fact that ComRel is the result of the merge of DevRel and UserRel. Let me also remind that in the past year there was discussion, initially in the mailing lists and latter inside the team communication mediums, about ComRel assuming CoC "enforcement". While DevRel had an established process, the one Markos already linked to, in UserRel we operated mostly based on common sense and unwritten rules, trying to resolve conflicts involving users and relying on members discretion or having a vote when harder measures where needed. During this past year, the ComRel team had an internal discussion about policies and how to enforce the CoC. From the user conflict perspective, Steve had one major issue. The one we've mentioned and that happened around 5 years ago. I was involved in the resolution of that case and was assigned with its enforcement. In my perspective, that incident, should now be considered as "resolved". That is, unless Steve were to go "ballistic" and a repeat offender, it shouldn't be taken into account. Also, there was and there is no "3 strikes and you're out" hard rule - from user conflict perspective. However, this incident involving Steve, was raised from the CoC "angle". IIRC, there was a proposal for something along those lines, but as I didn't followed it too closely and am not and don't want to be involved with the CoC enforcement, I'll let other ComRel members, address this point.
(In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #11) > While DevRel had an established process, the one Markos already linked to, > in UserRel we operated mostly based on common sense and unwritten rules, > trying to resolve conflicts involving users and relying on members > discretion or having a vote when harder measures where needed. I'm not sure a bug is really the right place to discuss what policy ought to be, but it seems like that is really the main concern here vs the incident at hand. IMHO I think a 3-strikes rule is bad if your goal is to reform people. Here we have an incident that happened a while back and it seems like one of the things that is keeping us from just moving on is a dispute over score-keeping, because offenses are cumulative and you never know when you might make a mistake in 10 years and wish that you had appealed a disputable incident in the past to the supreme court. Gentoo has been around for well over a decade now, and will probably still be around a decade from now. If somebody today at the age of 15 abuses the CoC, is it really relevant in a dispute that comes up when they are 30? I'm all for banning people who simply fail to come around, but nothing is forever.
(In reply to Richard Freeman from comment #12) > (In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #11) > > While DevRel had an established process, the one Markos already linked to, > > in UserRel we operated mostly based on common sense and unwritten rules, > > trying to resolve conflicts involving users and relying on members > > discretion or having a vote when harder measures where needed. > > I'm not sure a bug is really the right place to discuss what policy ought to > be, but it seems like that is really the main concern here vs the incident > at hand. > > IMHO I think a 3-strikes rule is bad if your goal is to reform people. Here > we have an incident that happened a while back and it seems like one of the > things that is keeping us from just moving on is a dispute over > score-keeping, because offenses are cumulative and you never know when you > might make a mistake in 10 years and wish that you had appealed a disputable > incident in the past to the supreme court. > > Gentoo has been around for well over a decade now, and will probably still > be around a decade from now. If somebody today at the age of 15 abuses the > CoC, is it really relevant in a dispute that comes up when they are 30? > > I'm all for banning people who simply fail to come around, but nothing is > forever. When you deal with people is really hard to establish rules written in stone. Each incident is separate, and depends on the type and severity of the incident, it may or may not be forgotten over the years. I will quote the following from the policy itself: "For repetitive violations, the case may be escalated to Community Relations for further disciplinary actions" Whereas the "further disciplinary actions" may sound a bit vague, this is intentional. Because each case is different. It could be a eg 2 weeks ban, a 2 months ban or permanent ban. We tried very hard to make the policy as flexible as possible but again, we don't want to become police that everyone is afraid of but we all agreed in the past that the environment around Gentoo is rather toxic and drastic measures were needed. This policy has been discussed many many times. If you see something wrong with it, please take it to comrel but not with this specific case as an example because everyone will talk about this specific case and will not focus on the big picture. Finally, I don't think this issue is something for bugzilla. If you feel the comrel *project* operates in a wrong way why don't you contact them directly?
(In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #13) > When you deal with people is really hard to establish rules written in > stone. Each incident is separate, and depends on the type and severity of > the incident, it may or may not be forgotten over the years. I will quote > the following from the policy itself: Looking at the policy, I don't actually see a 3-strikes and you're out policy anywhere, at least not now. I see guidelines for potentially escalating things every 3 times, with lots of wording like "Comrel MAY do such" (not an exact quote). My suggestion: If Steve objects to the decision in his particular case, follow the established appeals process. If Steve objects to the established appeals process, start a thread on -project. IMHO no body in authority is going to make a dramatic change to how Comrel works without discussion on -project and quite a bit of community-wide consensus anyway.
DISCLOSURE: At the time of this incident I was a trustee of the Gentoo Foudation Inc. This comment is made by me as an individual, not on behalf of Gentoo Foudation Inc. or even with my trustee hat on. I deliberately asked for an integer response as this bug is for a specific case and some ComRel totting up has been mentioned. Can someone post an integer response on behalf of ComRel please. A discussion on policy is not required. It remains far from clear if ComRel "have a little list" or not, that they perhaps inherited from their predecessors.
Jorge: Please rest assured that I appreciate your efforts, and of course accept your word. AFAIC, you have already stated that the incident from several years ago, which of course was done *under* the CoC, since it was shortly after its inception, was not a CoC "strike". The CoC explicitly made provision for "mutes" or "temp bans" or however you put it, similar to IRC, and required the proctors for enforcement (based on forums mods and IRC ops). Similarly you have stated that this process was also not a "strike" in your opinion, and further that it was erroneously handled. To my mind that served the first purpose of the bug, and the one that mattered most to me: that I am not under the threat of "one more strike and you're out" [or any other, see below] outlined in the email, but in fact there are 0 "strikes". Hopefully we've also established that, had the comrel team responsible for this matter actually carried out the correct process, they would have been reminded of the reason a forums user has this in his/her signature: "Rule of thumb: If I wrote anything that can be understood in two different ways, and one way offends you, then I meant the other!" My point simply is that that's basic for the user community, but apparently not for the developers. And in this case a wholly erroneous, and offensive, assumption would have been corrected. The wider point of why the proctors element of comrel should not be under Council supervision seems obvious to me: the developers said from the beginning, and have always maintained, that Council is a technical body, and that its leaders are elected on that basis, to make technical decisions. Whether they have leadership ability on anything other than code, is another matter, and such matters have always been under the purview of Trustees, pretty much by definition. However that, and a discussion of why not following the CoC as agreed by the drawn-out whole-community consensus process we went through to decide on proctors, isn't a good idea, should happen on @-nfp. It still is a matter for the Trustees, since like it or not, it does affect external relations, since end-users are not part of the Foundation, quite apart from the non-technical focus and skillset required. WRT naming Chandras, his was the only name I had, and he clearly had *some* involvement in the decision and process; further I know full well that there are people in Gentoo *rel like yourself (and how we miss fmmcor) so: No, this wasn't a bug about comrel as a whole, but specifically about the crappy actions and the going back over 5 years to drag up a temp-ban, and combine it what is now disingenously labelled "nothing to revert", to come up with a warning that I could face a permaban for this "repeated pattern". AIUI he was in fact "lead" of comrel at the time. If he doesn't want to take responsibility for leading the process in this case, that's his problem afaic. This bug is still about that process, and his rude, off-hand communication of said borked process. Hopefully I've shown restraint in not reacting immediately; so this process won't be seen as a stain on my record either. That was why I held off, in any event. Sorry if your CoC has changed from the one the Community agreed; regardless, the "strike" metaphor still applies, and I point blank refuse the offensive interpretation given to my words, and state again: it simply shows the prejudice of those who've never dealt with this stuff IRL, and jump to conclusions, especially when "one of us" is "under attack" (that's human nature). But then, why should developers who are chosen for technical merit in computing, have any clue about EOPs or HR, or indeed emotional intelligence? Regards, steveL.
(In reply to Roy Bamford from comment #15) > DISCLOSURE: At the time of this incident I was a trustee of the Gentoo > Foudation Inc. This comment is made by me as an individual, not on behalf > of Gentoo Foudation Inc. or even with my trustee hat on. > > I deliberately asked for an integer response as this bug is for a specific > case and some ComRel totting up has been mentioned. I'm not familiar with the term 'totting up'. I generally prefer to keep records of activity to record up when force is used. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473094 for the ML ban https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=488382 for bugzilla ban > > Can someone post an integer response on behalf of ComRel please. > A discussion on policy is not required. 0. There is no three strikes rule that I am aware of. > > It remains far from clear if ComRel "have a little list" or not, that they > perhaps inherited from their predecessors. As I said earlier, we (should rightly) keep records of enforcement actions, as users often wonder what happened, who voted, and so forth. Certainly that is 'a list' but is unlikely to be the list that you are asking about. In this particular case we did not communicate effectively with Steve about both bans. I believe Jorge has apologized for that already. Our policies clearly state that we should reach out to affected users to communicate our actions and we did not do that in this case. -A
I asked nicely for my name to not be in the title and yet you go ahead and change it back. Is there a reason you can't place nice? Next time you do it (place also check the spelling of my name) I will mark this bug as ComRel restricted so it won't be publicly visible if you still want to make this personal.
(In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #18) > I asked nicely for my name to not be in the title and yet you go ahead and > change it back. Is there a reason you can't place nice? Next time you do it > (place also check the spelling of my name) I will mark this bug as ComRel > restricted so it won't be publicly visible if you still want to make this > personal. s/place/play The fact that I was the lead and that I sent you that email does not mean I made the decision alone. If you can't understand how teams work I can't help you and frankly I don't want to help you anymore.
(In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #19) > (In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #18) > > I asked nicely for my name to not be in the title and yet you go ahead and > > change it back. Is there a reason you can't place nice? Next time you do it > > (place also check the spelling of my name) I will mark this bug as ComRel > > restricted so it won't be publicly visible if you still want to make this > > personal. > > s/place/play > > The fact that I was the lead and that I sent you that email does not mean I > made the decision alone. If you can't understand how teams work I can't help > you and frankly I don't want to help you anymore. I just find it risible that despite all the substantive points made about your behaviour, the ONLY thing that you commented on in this entire bug was to whinge about your name being on it, despite the fact that you LED the response. In fact I now find that you opened other bugs such as bug 488382 without even involving me; again this is exactly the behaviour that was complained about. You even disallowed access to bug 473094 -- and I note you have no problem shoving my name all over a bug, but cannot accept yours being attached to a complaint about your behaviour, and that of a team _you_ _led_. If you can't understand the word "responsibility" then kindly don't take a leadership position. And BTW you haven't helped me in any way whatsoever in the course of this sorry saga, which only revealed the prejudices of you and your team, imo. As for playing nice, none of you have done that: instead you've all colluded to beat up on me, without even finding out what I meant. You must have read the forums sig: "There are generally two ways to read what i said; if one offends you, chances are I meant the other." Basics for forums-users, but apparently beyond the wit of developers and their unmandated and ultra-vires "Comrel." None of you are playing nicely, and haven't done for the last year or so that this stupid nonsense has been ongoing. Deal with it or don't, it's still your own problem, and your own prejudices on display, though you might not understand why or how for a few years yet.
Can we quit with the bug games? It sounds like Comrel made a decision. If you want to appeal it, do so. If you don't want to appeal it, live with it. If you think the Council/Trustees should change how the system works, we meet monthly and anybody can submit an agenda item. I'm all for improvements when they make sense. However, your "et al" seems to be slowly morphing into just about anybody who actually contributes to Gentoo, and if you manage to tick everybody off there isn't much I can do for you. You seem to be raging over a decision you fear will be made if you appeal that nobody has actually made. I won't try to guess who is in the right, because right now it isn't my responsibility to deal with this. If you appeal we'll have a full airing of the particulars of this case. Otherwise, this is just a general discussion about the Comrel appeals process, and that is better handled apart from your specific case. I can say that for my part if we make changes to Comrel it will be to make Gentoo a better place, and not to take sides in a dispute like this.
(In reply to Richard Freeman from comment #21) > Can we quit with the bug games? Sure. Please stop changing my bug report around as if you get to decide whom I'm complaining about. Since Mr Chandros was soo upset at being held accountable for the actions of a team he led, and continues to lead, wrt a matter he handled personally no less, I've added another member as per bug 473094 and bug 488382#22 Again I find his inability to comprehend the term "responsibility" even more of a concern now that "the whole team had to resign" has turned into "they're back in charge." Unfortunately your developers are playing "bug games" with bug 468396 which I have been locked out of, though I did see it before. Bug 473094 was locked at that time, and jmbsvicetto cleared the lock. So there is at least one more member of said team to add to the title; dwfreed is the nickname iirc, but I haven't added his name until I can verify it. Note that Mr Hüttel *continues* to claim that the previous, improperly-handled ban is a CoC violation in bug 488382#22. Even if it were not so ineptly mishandled, it would not have counted as a CoC violation, as I placed on the record in comment 16. Further more this report clearly states unequivocally that no such policy is in place in comment 11 and comment 16. Does it not worry you AT ALL that your supposed "experts" in community relations are acting in such a partial manner? By all means feel free to add dwfreed yourself, once you have verified that he is one of the other members involved in such noxious behaviour. Full name please, since these actions have been carried out in their official capacity, as your proxies. And please refrain from removing anyone again: Chandros is not being singled out, and never has been. Quite the opposite, in both senses. Note that bug 468396 is linked from bug 488382 Note further that none of the three aforementioned bugs were known to me, until a few days ago. > It sounds like Comrel made a decision. If you want to appeal it, do so. If > you don't want to appeal it, live with it. The problem is I'd be appealing it to the same clique of people who believe a committee informally-constituted specifically to deal with technical issues, should also hear Appeals on social matters, under a non-existent mandate. See bug 488382#18 and above for reasoning. Additionally those same people, specifically selected to handle technical matters and absolutely nothing else, are now claiming that they are sufficiently clued up on social matters, apparently by fiat, as to avoid such a blatant conflict of interest, leave alone the absolutely howling one of you hearing an Appeal wrt a member of your own little clique-within-a-clique. Spare me the claims of independent thinking etc; I suggest you consult a lawyer, or someone more clued-up than any of the people currently working in "comrel". I'd suggest fmmcor, but he's sadly no longer with us (and doesn't it show.) > If you think the Council/Trustees should change how the system works, > we meet monthly and anybody can submit an agenda item. It would be ultra vires, in technical terms, for you even to hear such an item; much as your current behaviour, and stance is ultra vires. > I'm all for improvements when they make sense. However, your "et al" seems > to be slowly morphing into just about anybody who actually contributes to > Gentoo If you are referring to the aforementioned comment, I suggest you re-read it. Note that I mention those "resting their claim to authority on such spurious grounds." If you mean the comment above yours, I stand by every word. > and if you manage to tick everybody off there isn't much I can do > for you. You seem to be raging over a decision you fear will be made if you > appeal that nobody has actually made. Nope, I'm incensed at the continued poking, and the stubborn refusal to accept my word. How about you guys kindly leave me alone instead of continually refusing to believe anything I say, as I have consistently maintained, and read up on what "good faith" really means. Hint: it's not about you bashing users and then claiming they're not acting in good faith, when they don't like it. > I won't try to guess who is in the right, because right now it isn't my > responsibility to deal with this. If you appeal we'll have a full airing of > the particulars of this case. Otherwise, this is just a general discussion > about the Comrel appeals process, and that is better handled apart from your > specific case. I can say that for my part if we make changes to Comrel it > will be to make Gentoo a better place, and not to take sides in a dispute > like this. For your part, I might be willing to take your word. Sadly that doesn't speak to anyone else (not that I'm up on who's currently on Council); nor does it address the blatant CoI inherent in one group of developer sitting in judgement on another group of developers; one they supposedly manage, no less. That's why the *only* CoC that has any mandate, specified the proctors. How about you address that, since it is so blindingly obvious. After all, it could only make Gentoo better; that is why it was mandated by the Community after all. The only cross-community vote I know about, that took nearly 9 months to get through. And who shafted it? Why, a member of Council, who'd been involved in the whole process the entire way through. QED. So yes, I absolutely object to such an "appeal". Trustees have the authority, but not Council, much as I might (or might not) respect any individual member. That's kind of the point.
"Further more this report clearly states unequivocally that no such policy is in place in comment 11 and comment 16." Typo; should read: comment 11 and comment 17
Trustees, this bug is assigned to you. Do you intend to take any further action on it specifically? Otherwise, this is a Comrel matter, and there has been no request for Comrel action, and no appeal to the Council, which means there is nothing further to do here. This really isn't the forum for these kinds of discussions - we have a process to handle it which has not been followed. Our bugzilla is not an open forum for community members to rant about the unfairness of the entire developer community. If we want to have a discussion about who should handle Comrel appeals, we can have it, but I'd recommend that this discussion be made completely apart from any specific case, and I suggest not using this bug to do it. I'll withhold any further comment on the merits of the arguments being made.
Hi all We discussed this bug (and the mailing thread that ensued) and decided that this issue is one within the realm of responsibility of comrel, and with council as the appeal if necessary. I'm reassigning this to comrel, but keep the status as RESOLVED:FIXED.
