Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #11090 > unrolled thread

Community Team - where we want to go

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Community Team - where we want to go Steve McIntyre <93sam@debian.org> - 2019-10-09 23:30 +0200
    Re: Community Team - where we want to go Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> - 2019-10-10 02:50 +0200
      Re: Community Team - where we want to go Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2019-10-10 08:00 +0200
    Re: Community Team - where we want to go Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-10-10 08:30 +0200
    Re: Community Team - where we want to go Mathias Behrle <mathiasb@m9s.biz> - 2019-10-10 10:10 +0200
    Re: Community Team - where we want to go Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2019-10-10 11:20 +0200
      Re: Community Team - where we want to go Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-10-10 13:50 +0200
        Re: Community Team - where we want to go Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2019-10-10 23:20 +0200
          Re: Community Team - where we want to go Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2019-10-12 01:50 +0200
    Re: Community Team - where we want to go Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2019-10-10 14:20 +0200
    Re: Community Team - where we want to go Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org> - 2019-10-10 16:20 +0200
    Re: Community Team - where we want to go Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> - 2019-10-10 17:10 +0200
    Re: Community Team - where we want to go Martina Ferrari <tincho@debian.org> - 2019-10-11 06:10 +0200
      Re: Community Team - where we want to go Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-10-11 13:30 +0200
        Re: Community Team - where we want to go Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2019-10-12 04:10 +0200
          Re: Community Team - where we want to go Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2019-10-14 13:50 +0200
            Re: Community Team - where we want to go Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2019-10-14 15:30 +0200
            Re: Community Team - where we want to go Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2019-10-14 15:30 +0200
      Re: Community Team - where we want to go Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-10-11 23:30 +0200
    Re: Community Team - where we want to go Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-10-21 13:40 +0200
      Re: Community Team - where we want to go Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2019-10-21 14:00 +0200
        Re: Community Team - where we want to go Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-10-21 15:40 +0200
          Re: Community Team - where we want to go Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2019-10-21 16:10 +0200
            Re: Community Team - where we want to go Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-10-21 16:30 +0200
      Re: Community Team - where we want to go Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2019-10-23 13:00 +0200
    Re: Community Team - where we want to go Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2019-11-08 20:30 +0100
      Re: Community Team - where we want to go Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2019-11-14 23:10 +0100
        Re: Community Team - where we want to go Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-11-15 02:30 +0100
      Re: Community Team - where we want to go Martina Ferrari <tincho@debian.org> - 2019-11-14 00:00 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#11127

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Dear Sam,

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 07:37:16AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 2) Choose to delegate.  From my side the biggest question is likely to
> be whether you have managed to recruit enough people to [...]

could you please give a rough range for what 'enough people' would
mean to you? Are 5 enough? 12? 23? 42?


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11128

>>>>> "Holger" == Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> writes:

    Holger> Dear Sam,
    Holger> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 07:37:16AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> 2) Choose to delegate.  From my side the biggest question is
    >> likely to be whether you have managed to recruit enough people to
    >> [...]

    Holger> could you please give a rough range for what 'enough people'
    Holger> would mean to you? Are 5 enough? 12? 23? 42?

I'd prefer to toss that question to the Community team.
I know they have given it some thought, and I haven't heard their most
recent thoughts on the matter.

--Sam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11129

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Sam,

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 09:34:25AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>     >> 2) Choose to delegate.  From my side the biggest question is
>     Holger> could you please give a rough range for what 'enough people'
>     Holger> would mean to you? Are 5 enough? 12? 23? 42?
> I'd prefer to toss that question to the Community team.

Fair enough.

> I know they have given it some thought, and I haven't heard their most
> recent thoughts on the matter.

TBH I'm still surprised you dont wanna give an answer on this, as you
have identified this as your biggest question (so just must have a rough
idea what 'enough' means in this context), probably even a blocker for
delegation, while Sledge's mail doesn't mention this as an issue at all
(though maybe it was such an obvious issue for them that they forgot to
mention it).

I'm now even more curious what CT people will answer.

and btw, there's no need to cc: me, I'm subscribed to the list. 
(As we are discussing the broader topic of CoC's here, I wish to point to
#12 of https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct and mention
that I consider routinely ignoring it to be rather rude. Granted, I
usually ignore such violations but it feels a bit absurd when
discussing CoC topics.)


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11130

>>>>> "Holger" == Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> writes:

    Holger> Hi Sam,
    Holger> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 09:34:25AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> >> 2) Choose to delegate.  From my side the biggest question is
    Holger> could you please give a rough range for what 'enough people'
    Holger> would mean to you? Are 5 enough? 12? 23? 42?
    >> I'd prefer to toss that question to the Community team.

    Holger> Fair enough.

    >> I know they have given it some thought, and I haven't heard their
    >> most recent thoughts on the matter.

    Holger> TBH I'm still surprised you dont wanna give an answer on
    Holger> this, as you have identified this as your biggest question
    Holger> (so just must have a rough idea what 'enough' means in this
    Holger> context), probably even a blocker for delegation, while
    Holger> Sledge's mail doesn't mention this as an issue at all
    Holger> (though maybe it was such an obvious issue for them that
    Holger> they forgot to mention it).

I would start by asking "Hey, do you think you have enough people?"
Steve did talk about this at the DC19 BOF.
I don't anticipate this being an issue where the community team and I
would be very likely to disagree.

--Sam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11136

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 07:37:16AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:

> > * In extreme incidents or after repeated harmful behaviour or Code of
> >   Conduct violations, writing reports for relevant teams (e.g. Planet
> >   admins, listmasters, DAM), to summarise relevant incidents along
> >   with analysis and suggested possible courses of action; and
> 
> my understanding from cambridge is that DAM would prefer not to get
> recommendations on what to do in such cases.
> Is DAM happy with the suggested possible courses of action language?
> Even if not, it's fine to keep if other teams would appreciate that
> feedback.

Thanks, good catch!

I would prefer to receive on the DAM side a collection or list of
pointers to relevant things, and anything I could use to decide what to
do, and I fear that receiving suggestions on what to do would make
things more complicated.

This is because if feel that if we receive a suggestion, not only we
still need to figure out a course of action independently of what the
reporter(s) suggests, but then we also need to deal with a conflict with
the reporter(s) if the course of action that we choose is different from
what was suggested.

We might of course find it helpful or important, depending on cases, to
reach out to the reporter(s) or other people involved to discuss
possible course of actions.


Enrico

-- 
GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11140

Hi Steve,

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 10:26:39PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
[...]
> Responsibilities include
> ========================
> 
>  * Interpreting the Code of Conduct;

I have to say that it was never my intention that there be one team that
would have the power to "interpret" the Code of Conduct. It was
carefully written to empower administrators of various systems in the
project (i.e., IRC, mailinglists, salsa, etc) to "temporarily or
permanently" ban people who use our systems in abusive ways, but with
the caveat that the reasons for which that clause could be invoked are
vague *on purpose*. The Code of Conduct tries to encourage good
behavior, rather than discourage bad behavior, which makes for an easier
way to detect that someone is breaking the rules set out in that
document. There is a whole spectrum of different behaviors between what
would be considered "good" and what would be considered "bad"; when
someone does something that is "almost bad", then it is very obviously
also "not good", so technically violating our Code of Conduct. With a
Code of Conduct that enumerates bad behavior instead, we would
(technically) have no reason to ban someone who is in the "almost bad"
location for Code of Conduct violations.

While I'm not arguing that we should take punitive action against
everyone who violates our current Code of Conduct in the "almost bad"
sense, there is a reason why it mentions "repeat offenders";
additionally, I also think that the current phrasing of the Code of
Conduct allows administrators the necessary leeway to take the correct
course of action as necessitated by individual situations.

If what you mean by "interpreting" is "eventually come up with a long
list of things not to do", then that would definitely be against the
spirit of the current Code of Conduct (at least as it was intended by
its primary author, i.e., me), and I would be disappointed if that were
to happen.

[...]
> Examples of things the team does *not* do
> =========================================
[...]
>  * Mediate communications or conversations between individuals; or

I also wonder why you exclude this as a responsibility. I think that a
team which does explicitly not have the power to take any punitive
action (but at the same time is involved in a lot of situations like
that) would often (though probably not always) be in an ideal position
to mediate between members. What am I missing?

-- 
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy

  -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11146

Le Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:55:41PM +0000, Martina Ferrari a écrit :
> 
> A short reply in a personal capacity..

Hi Martina and everybody,

I have always found replies “in a personal capacity” or “with [the
team's] hat off” very confusing; probably because I rarely see this
communication style outside Debian.  Especially when coming from teams
that have quite some power, I think that it would be better for us to
receive statements that reflect the consensus of the team, if necessary
with some kind of addendum explaining the minority's point of view when
the opinions of the team members are split in a way that it is hard to
resolve.

Have a nice day,

Charles

-- 
Charles Plessy
Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11147

>>>>> "Charles" == Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:

    Charles> Le Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:55:41PM +0000, Martina Ferrari a
    Charles> écrit :
    >> 
    >> A short reply in a personal capacity..

    Charles> Hi Martina and everybody,

    Charles> I have always found replies “in a personal capacity” or
    Charles> “with [the team's] hat off” very confusing; probably
    Charles> because I rarely see this communication style outside
    Charles> Debian.  Especially when coming from teams that have quite
    Charles> some power, I think that it would be better for us to
    Charles> receive statements that reflect the consensus of the team,
    Charles> if necessary with some kind of addendum explaining the
    Charles> minority's point of view when the opinions of the team
    Charles> members are split in a way that it is hard to resolve.

I think there are significant problems when you try and consolidate
opinions in a consensus discussion.

When we as an entire community are trying to figure things out, it's
really hard to do that if some of us are speaking as individuals and
some of us are speaking as groups.

Put another way, consensus decision making requires that everyone
involved in building the consensus be reasonably open to listening to
others, considering how their comments affect the consensus, and being
open about those changes as the discussion progresses.  When some of the
stakeholders need to go off and have an internal discussion, it means it
is harder for a consensus facilitator (or anyone else) to see if
concerns have been raised.
It tends to create some unfortunate power imbalances.

So, I at least find it useful especially in consensus forming
discussions if people are willing to comment as individual members of
teams.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11152

Wouter,

A short reply in a personal capacity..

On 08/11/2019 19:28, Wouter Verhelst wrote:

> While I'm not arguing that we should take punitive action against
> everyone who violates our current Code of Conduct in the "almost bad"
> sense, there is a reason why it mentions "repeat offenders";
> additionally, I also think that the current phrasing of the Code of
> Conduct allows administrators the necessary leeway to take the correct
> course of action as necessitated by individual situations.
> 
> If what you mean by "interpreting" is "eventually come up with a long
> list of things not to do", then that would definitely be against the
> spirit of the current Code of Conduct (at least as it was intended by
> its primary author, i.e., me), and I would be disappointed if that were
> to happen.

That is definitely not what was intented, and I don't think anybody in
the team ever thought of coming up with such a list!

On the contrary, since the CoC is deliberately vague, you will encounter
situations where people disagree on the interpretation. The idea of
"interpreting" the CoC is to have a team that says "we think this
situation is/is not/ a violation of the CoC", and that tries to do it in
a fair manner. As you say, the CoC also gives tools to the
administrators to disagree, and they still retain the last word without
need for any kind of appeal process.


>> Examples of things the team does *not* do
>> =========================================
> [...]
>>  * Mediate communications or conversations between individuals; or
> 
> I also wonder why you exclude this as a responsibility. I think that a
> team which does explicitly not have the power to take any punitive
> action (but at the same time is involved in a lot of situations like
> that) would often (though probably not always) be in an ideal position
> to mediate between members. What am I missing?

The main problem with this is that we are just another group of
volunteers with limited time and energy. Mediation work is not only
difficult and requires specific tools and training, but it is also
emotionally exhausting. I know I would not be able to do that for long
before burning out completely. OTOH, this is something that does not
need any kind of authority or delegation: saving for private
communications, anybody in the community can step-up and try to
de-escalate and help their peers, and I have seen this happening more
and more since I joined Debian. I also think that is happening because
we have grown as a community to the point where we are not tolerating
the kind of toxic behaviour we used to tolerate 15 years ago.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web