In the matter of the ferringb's, grobian's, and kito's complaints against ciaranm for policy (etiquette) violations: After two sessions, the hearing board presented their unanimous findings to devrel on 6 April, 2006; their report is attached. Policy requires devrel leads (koeri, fmmcor) to take action "consistent with these findings." In this instance, we agree in substance with the boards' findings and recommendations as stated, and broadly adopt them unchanged. Specifically, in order of decreasing severity: I. ciaranm ------- The board recommends termination of ciaranm's developer privileges indefinitely with a possibility of return. We agree, and are retiring ciaranm as an active developer for Gentoo. To be considered for reactivation, he must satisfy the conditions set out in the board's report and repeated below. In each instance, the complaining party established the policy violations of which he complained, and in two instances there is no offsetting counter-violation. Thus we are faced with policy violations, and to recommend a sanction, the board may consider other evidence available to it. In this case, other comments on Bug 114944 and the history leading up to ciaranm's suspension last year suggest a pattern of antagonistic behavior. In no instance is there any indication that ciaranm attempted to resolve the outstanding issues with any party; indeed, he felt it was their responsibility to make contact with him. This is a misreading of policy and indicates reluctance to work with the complaining parties to reach a resolution. Indeed, at the hearing on this matter, ciaranm did not seem to recognize that his interactions with the complaining parties indicated a pattern of behavior requiring correction. This suggests that the relationship between ciaranm and other developers is unlikely to improve on its own. Consequently, we are providing impetus to this end and retiring ciaranm indefinitely. However, we note that throughout this proceding, ciaranm has been completely cooperative and polite. We appreciate this, and so endorse the board's final recommendation, which is that while this suspension is indefinite, it is not necessarily permanent: The board sets out conditions which ciaranm must meet to regain active status, and with these conditions we also agree. Specifically, as required by policy, ciaranm must convince the Gentoo leads and the ombudsman that he is willing to modify his style of interaction with other developers so that it will conform with Gentoo policy, and he must demonstrate actual conformance with policy through his continuing relationships within the Gentoo community. Toward this end, we strongly urge ciaranm to reach an understanding with each of the parties named in the complaint. II. ferringb -------- Ferringb established the policy violations of which he complained. However, as he has admitted, he is also in violation of policy. Generally, we are not concerned with fights between developers, but in this instance (1) the argument took place in public (Bug 114944), (2) ferringb raised a complaint against ciaranm, and hence putting his own behavior into play, but (3) has discussed with ciaranm the their differences between them. Thus, both parties are in violation, and if ferringb had not requested devrel intervention, there would be nothing to consider. But he did, and so devrel also considers his policy violations. In this case we note that (1) ferringb is already retired, and (2) he acknowledged error at the hearing. We believe that such an admission largely offsets the violations, especially as these violations appear to be isolated to this particular case, and ferringb has spoken with ciaranm about their differences. Therefore, we agree with the board's recommendation. In effect, we suspend ferringb for 30 days, which means that if he wishes to return to active developer status, he must wait for 30 days from the date of this report to do so, at which time he may contact devrel to request reinstatement. III. grobian ------- Grobian established the policy violations of which we believed he was complaining. However, at the hearing he stated that he had not wished to be part of the complaint, and that he had never contacted ciaranm to resolve any differences between them. The fact is, however, he certainly knew that he was believed to be a party to the complaint. Also he knew that every party in an action of this sort has a positive responsibility to attempt to resolve their differences. Devrel views this combination as an abuse of process. However, the violations which he cited are real so the effects of grobian's violations are minimal, and there is nothing to suggest anything like this is likely to occur again. We accept the board's recommendattion and require grobian to write (email) apologies to ciaranm, devrel, and -core for not informing us of his wish not to be part of this complaint. If grobian complies with this requirement within 48 hours of receipt of this resolution, he will have met our requirements and we will have nothing more to resolve with him. If he does not comply within 48 hours, his write access to cvs will be suspended until he does (at which time full access will be restored automatically). IV. kito ---- Kito established the violations of which he complained; he did contact ciaranm in an attempt to resolve their differences; he cooperated with us as requested. His case is resolved. ============================================================================== Any party may appeal these actions to the Council. However, our decisions are now in effect and remain so unless reversed. Many thanks to the investigators (dostrow, slarti, taviso) and to the hearing board members (hparker, ribosome, sejo) for excellent performance and unfailingly professional conduct under difficult circumstances and to all parties for their cooperation.