fedora community working group

[inode0]

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Paul Frields <stickster at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:09 PM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at tummy.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:57:56 -0500
>>> Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On the open question of how to discourage/prevent poisonous <foo>, I
>>>> suggest doing something similar as was done in the kde project a
>>>> couple of years ago to help deal with similar issues.  I propose
>>>> creating something in fedora akin to the 'kde community working
>>>> group', http://ev.kde.org/workinggroups/cwg.php
>>>>
>>>> I consider it vitally important that everyone in the fedora community
>>>> feel safe, know fedora supports them, and that there be a clear
>>>> contact person/group to go to in cases where they experience any
>>>> non-excellent behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Now, being excellent has taken us quite a ways, but I think it's time
>>>> to consider doing better, so...
>>>
>>> I like this as a possibly way to find areas of Fedora where our
>>> community isn't as welcoming as we all would like and have people that
>>> can join in and provide positive info and answers (ignoring or letting
>>> the unwelcoming people drift off to the fringe).
>>
>> At the risk of making Greg burst out laughing, I think this is exactly
>> what the Fedora Project needs, a Nant'an in each sub-community of
>> Fedora who sets a proper tone and is followed because of his example,
>> not because he has any authority.
>
> We do have quite a few people setting great examples out there. Both
> Mr. Fenzi and Mr. Dieter are probably tired of being pointed out as
> examples, but well... there you have it. ;-)  And they've each been
> operating that way for years now, which is a good reason why this
> issue should be taken seriously.

I agree with that 100% and I agree with Kevin's suggestion recently on
his blog where he called for others to join him in trying to set a
positive tone shifting those who don't to the fringe.

>>> I do think we should be carefull here not to empower this group with
>>> all kinds of punishment ability or enforcement. Negativity feeds on
>>> more Negativity. ;)
>>
>> And this would be exactly what we don't need, a prison system run by
>> the Fedora Board or some other central authority. As soon as you add
>> the "or else" clause, enumerate powers to enforce and punish the evil
>> among us it transforms it from being a positive motivating statement
>> to being one that is based on inducing fear in the rabble. And the
>> rabble will just get more ornery.
>>
>> Over time a code of conduct can frame our expectations. But I would
>> like those expectations to be *our* expectations of our own behavior,
>> not an understanding of what *you* expect from us.

Let me expand on this a little bit below because I think my point was
too obscured to be clear with language that could easily be taken in a
way I did not intend.

> John, I'm betting my expectations aren't far different from yours, but
> I don't know for sure. Speaking as one friend and fellow community
> member to another, what are your expectations of my behavior?

I think if the Board or a working group or 10 more or less random
contributors took up this task they would arrive at very similar sets
of expectations. So let's say we have a code of conduct written in the
positive expectation manner described. I can see over time the
community internalizing that statement as its view of appropriate
conduct - a situation where it is much more likely to self-police
conduct that falls outside those expectations.

If we have exactly the same positive statement of expectations,
coupled with "or else" clauses and enforcement/punishment policies
then I think many in the community and most new people coming into the
community would view that statement as one imposed on them from a
higher authority. And in the long run I don't think that would be
internalized in the same way and it would give individual members in
the community a reason to not self-police since they would see
enforcement as someone else's responsibility.

So I encourage the first of those options, staying positive, and
looking forward to long term benefits. Doing the second of those
options might help solve short term problems but doesn't offer me the
same expectation I have of a happy self-policing community in the
future.

John