> And it looks like you still haven't understand our point: > > You are lacking humanity. https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/e659564c6377eef8f44d75ef666dd56a I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take as a personal insult from Whissi, or a statement made on behalf of the Council. In either case, I was pointed out that it's a direct CoC violation and requested to report it here. Apparently the relevant CoC point is: | Being judgmental, mean-spirited or insulting.
I would like to propose the following as a resolution, for the proctors to decide on per our resolution process: Proctors will reply to the list issuing a warning as the statement is a personal attack in nature. We would acknowledge that perhaps it was worded more strongly than intended due to the use of non-native English, but the problem would have been avoided if we focused more on the policy issues and spoke less about the individuals implementing them. The fact that the discussion involves current/former council members makes it important to try to set an example. Since proctors is still a fairly new concept I would go further and clarify that: * Proctors doesn't get involved in trying to resolve interpersonal conflict or gauge intent - we're focused on what was said and trying to improve how we communicate. * Proctors doesn't make value judgements regarding the people making statements, just what was said. Proctors, feel free to agree/disagree and make alternate resolution proposals. Per the policy I'll enact if it gets the appropriate support: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Proctors#Resolution_process Also, I am making this bug public, per Proctors policy. The issue was on a public list, and our discussion/handling of this will be public. Please keep this in mind when commenting.
For clarification, my warning was to be addressed to whissi in reply to his post. Some were asking if it was directed at Council, and I don't see anything to suggest that this was even stated on behalf of the whole Council, and if it were I'm not sure that is really in proctor's scope as the Council as a body is accountable to the community. And again, per the second bullet point, this is more about what was said and how, and not a judgement on the individuals involved, which is not really the scope of proctors. The goal is to elevate the discussion of issues in accordance with our CoC (which isn't entirely negative - I'd suggest reading the whole thing again). Sticking to the facts of policy and what was done is going to do more to drive improvement than speculating as to motivations or personal qualities. Note also my proposal was made before the reply was posted to the list, but I still submit that discussion of the alleged personal flaws of individuals on lists is not in accordance with how we are supposed to handle these issues, so I still support at least a warning. I'd also note that a ban for a council member in the middle of an election when issues are being discussed on the lists may not serve the interests of the community who do deserve to hear the voices of anybody up for election. Again, let's try to focus on the positive and deal with the issues themselves.
+1 for the warning here.
Warning posted: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/11dcfa23b742f5772bf452cda339067e On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:41 AM Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@g.o> wrote: > > During council meeting from 2019-05-12, we, the current running council, > tried to make it very clear that we are really concerned about > undertaker project's attitude expressed in pre-meeting talk in > #gentoo-council on 2019-05-08, 2019-05-09 and during meeting. And it > looks like you still haven't understand our point: > > You are lacking humanity. The Proctors have decided that this post/message/etc is in violation of the Gentoo Code of Conduct and are issuing this warning. While we recognize that a language barrier may have resulted in this statement being made more strongly than intended, it is still a personal attack in nature. When discussing application of policy it is better to focus on the policy itself and its application, and less on the individuals making the decisions. If there are concerns with how an individual is interacting with others on a personal level, this should be raised in private with Comrel, if direct communication fails. The fact that the discussion involves current/former council members makes it important to try to set an example. Since Proctors is still a fairly new concept we wish to clarify that: * Proctors doesn't get involved in trying to resolve interpersonal conflict or gauge intent - we're focused on what was said and trying to improve how we communicate. * Proctors doesn't make value judgments regarding the people making statements, just what was said. * Proctors warnings do not have any cumulative effect, or any direct effect at all. This is intended to try to encourage good behavior, not to punish. -- Rich
On a personal note, thanks all for bearing with us. Proctors is still new and we're trying to standardize this process, which ran a bit slow. Feedback is welcome, though I acknowledge that opinions will vary on the necessity of this.
(In reply to Richard Freeman from comment #5) > On a personal note, thanks all for bearing with us. Proctors is still new > and we're trying to standardize this process, which ran a bit slow. > Feedback is welcome, though I acknowledge that opinions will vary on the > necessity of this. How about quoting the exact part of the CoC I should have violated?
(In reply to Thomas Deutschmann from comment #6) > (In reply to Richard Freeman from comment #5) > > On a personal note, thanks all for bearing with us. Proctors is still new > > and we're trying to standardize this process, which ran a bit slow. > > Feedback is welcome, though I acknowledge that opinions will vary on the > > necessity of this. > > How about quoting the exact part of the CoC I should have violated? Probably not a bad idea for future warnings. In this case mgorny's original complaint is reasonable: * Being judgmental, mean-spirited or insulting. A few others could also apply to some degree, but I'd point out as well: * Using the correct forum for your post. Insofar as it is personal, the mailing lists aren't the right forum. And again, speaking personally, this certainly hasn't been the most inflamatory thing I've seen on the lists. We just have to start somewhere...
