Seeking feedback and/or approval on CWG working group drafts

[inode0]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Jon Stanley <jonstanley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:30 PM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That sentence is part of my objection to this draft. I don't want the
>> board to delegate the power to expel people for vague unspecified
>> offenses to another person or body. I want the board to belly up to it
>> if they really feel it is necessary and do the dirty work themselves
>> to be blunt about it. That will give me confidence that the offense
>> really rises to a very high level. What three people on some appointed
>> committee decide doesn't give me the same confidence for example.
>
> That's interesting that you say that. The original charter of the CWG
> was to come up with these documents, which they did, and then the
> further need for them and/or composition would be evaluated. I don't
> think that the CWG as it currently exists ever expected that they'd be
> the ones charged with enforcing these documents (and someone can
> correct me if I'm sorely mistaken)

Right, I said "for example" because we don't have any idea who or how
such a death penalty case would be decided from this document. Just
that it would be either the board or someone it designates and that
the offense must be "not being nice" to some unspecified degree.

> That being said, the Board also is not the Fedora traffic cops, nor
> the Fedora Gestapo, and we AFAIK have no desire to enter into that
> business. The Board consists of 9 people, who cannot be everywhere
> that there is to be all at once. The people closest to the item being
> debated are the ones best fit to deal with it. Of course, when that
> doesn't work there needs to be some sort of last resort body to deal
> with it. If the proposal is that that is the Board is that body and
> that power cannot be further delegated, that's certainly valid. Being
> we don't expect this type of thing to come up very often (in talking
> to a member of the KDE CWG, they've had something like 3 incidents
> over the past several years, one of which did lead to the permanent
> expulsion of the person in question).

With all due respect asking the board to handle death penalty cases
isn't asking the board to be traffic cops. It is a show of respect to
the board that I trust them more than any other body to put personal
feelings aside for the good of the project. They more than anyone else
have that responsibility in my mind.

>> I don't view that as a problem when it comes to permanent expulsion
>> from the project. If you can't convince the FPL and the entire board
>> then I think that penalty is too severe.
>
> The difficulty here is if the person has friends on the Board, etc.
> This is not uncommon, and I'd like to see something like a 2/3
> majority. I'm not sure *anything* should require the decision be
> unanimous (although we do strive for that in everything we do, not
> just matters related to individual contributors).

This difficulty exists with any body. We all have friends. If we don't
require unanimity for the death penalty then I guess we just move the
bar to whether you have 3 or fewer friends or not. I would rather this
be a responsibility of the board to do what is right rather than
assuming the board will put friendships ahead of the good of the
project and leaving us with a popularity contest.

I rather suspect there would never need to be such a death penalty
case in real life anyway - a lesser expulsion would likely amount to
the same thing because who would want to come back after a 3 year
expulsion anyway? Ok, maybe the sort of person who would get expelled
would I guess, I don't know.

John