Devrel's resolution of this complaint.

HearingRuling.txt (text/plain), 5.83 KB, created by Ferris McCormick (RETIRED) on 2006-04-07 13:19:38 UTC

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.