The changes had initially been made by dilfridge[1], we need these changes implemented before we can send the final proctors announcement. [1] - https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Dilfridge/CoC
(In reply to Mikle Kolyada from comment #0) > The changes had initially been made by dilfridge[1], we need these changes > implemented before we can send the final proctors announcement. > > [1] - https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Dilfridge/CoC Literally these changes are only about proctors, see the diff https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project:Council/Code_of_conduct&diff=727730&oldid=723544
> Proctors may attempt to resolve the problem [...]. If the problem repeats itself, there are various options open, including [...] in more severe cases suspension of developer privileges. This could suggest that Proctors have the power to suspend developer privileges.
Also: "appeals should be addressed to Gentoo [[Project:ComRel|Community Relations]]" Is this actually possible? It seems to contradict GLEP 39, which says that the Council is the appeals instance. And if it is possible, will the ComRel decision be final? (Because if it isn't, we could as well skip ComRel altogether, because people will escalate to Council in any case.)
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #3) > Also: > "appeals should be addressed to Gentoo [[Project:ComRel|Community > Relations]]" > > Is this actually possible? It seems to contradict GLEP 39, which says that > the Council is the appeals instance. And if it is possible, will the ComRel > decision be final? (Because if it isn't, we could as well skip ComRel > altogether, because people will escalate to Council in any case.) OK let me comment here since I wrote it... (This is precisely what I sent a dozen times to council and comrel... :) No, the idea is that we push an additional layer between proctors and council. The council remains the "final instance". Given that the intention is a separation of responsibilities between "serious issues" ( -> comrel ) and "fast slaps / daily business" ( -> proctors ), and given that an appeal against proctor decisions is only possible from the third "slap" on, it makes sense to have comrel review first (since things are getting serious then).
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #2) > > Proctors may attempt to resolve the problem [...]. If the problem repeats itself, there are various options open, including [...] in more severe cases suspension of developer privileges. > > This could suggest that Proctors have the power to suspend developer > privileges. OK that should probably be reworded, I overlooked it.
(In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #5) > (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #2) > > > Proctors may attempt to resolve the problem [...]. If the problem repeats itself, there are various options open, including [...] in more severe cases suspension of developer privileges. > > > > This could suggest that Proctors have the power to suspend developer > > privileges. > > OK that should probably be reworded, I overlooked it. My two cents here: """ Proctors may attempt to resolve the problem by talking to involved parties, potentially issuing warnings if appropriate. If the problem repeats itself, there are various options open, including temporary access suspension to different Gentoo communication facilities (such as bugzilla, IRC or mailing lists). """
(In reply to Mikle Kolyada from comment #6) > Proctors may attempt to resolve the problem by talking to involved parties, > potentially issuing warnings if appropriate. While I don't see any problem with talking to involved parties per se, this almost sounds like dispute mediation/etc which I didn't think was really the mission of Proctors. I was under the impression that the intent was for Proctors to be more of a moderation team. Somebody posts something that crosses the line on a mailing list, and the Proctors act on it. As such the situation is basically evident on the face of things, and there really isn't much need to talk to involved parties. Discretion is more about the seriousness of the offense/etc. If you can't tell whether something violates the CoC without talking to the parties involved, then I'm not sure it is really a matter for the Proctors in the first place. I don't think their scope includes stuff that happens outside of public channels/etc. Now, something that might require talking to parties is if something happens on an official Gentoo channel/list/whatever which does not have logging and where no proctor was present to witness the behavior, and thus witness accounts are needed. However, I think the better solution in these cases is to institute logging, or make the channel out of scope for Proctors. This is just my impression of the intent of Proctors from talking to Council members/etc.
This was reviewed, discussed, and voted upon. Fixed.
