Looking for feedback on Fedora COC Enforcement Draft

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 08:08:50 +0000
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would believe any kind of action on behalf of one or more parties 
> involved is bad and will lead to further friction between all parties 
> involved and what you are effectively doing with this proposal is
> only burdening the moderators.

Well, there will sometimes be a time when involved parties can't reach
any kind of accommodation with each other, but there are many many
times when they can, and if so, the problem gets solved with no fuss. 

Moderators should moderate. :) If they are unwilling or unable to do
so, shouldn't we find folks willing to do that? 

> Any dispute/differences needs to be handle from a neutral party thus
> I propose that what has been mentioned here will be made part of SOP
> for CWG to handle those difference should the unfortunate need for
> that arise.

So, if I disagree with you here should I take it to the CWG instead of
just discussing things rationally and trying to reach some
consensus? :) 

This seems to me to be taking away conflict resolution from the low
levels where people know their community/area and whats going on and
bumping it up to a group that may or may not and the issue may not even
be very severe.

> The community needs to be ensured that CWG did what ever it could to 
> settle a dispute before taking any necessary actions thus the CWG
> will need to handle all dispute brought to it's table in a completely
> open and in transparent manner for the community.

Well, as much as possible, I agree. I'm a big fan of openness. 

> All communication between CWG and the parties involved be publicly 
> available at the time of them transpiring and a public community 
> announcement be made when an issue brought to it's table ( most
> likely in it's own track instance ) to alert the community about the
> problem ( the community could step in to try to help settle this
> before any kind of ruling on CWG behalf needs to take place which
> result only in two either it manages to settle the difference or it
> effectively casts out a community member ) .

Well, I'm not sure how practical that will end up being in all cases. 
Forcing all data to be public may reflect poorly on community members
and become part of the collective internet memory that can never be
forgotten. 

We should discuss this however and come up with some guideline for
sure. 

> 
> By the creation of CWG it effectively became the judge jury and 
> executioner of matters like these and given how it came to be I
> propose that the current *appointed* members will work on the
> underlying ground work for the CWG then the community nominates the
> persons they believe are capable of true neutrality and can detach
> themselves from any personal feeling/opinions and corporate ties and
> those persons contacted and ask if they would like to become members
> of the CWG followed by the community voting on the nominated members.

well, I'm not sure popular voting will result in such people. 
If there's a large block (and frankly not many people vote in fedora
elections) that want a particular agenda they could vote in a bunch of
folks who are not neutral. 

> Note that *any* corporate members should be allowed express
> themselves freely within our community and under no circumstances
> should they get any *special* treatment or as was proposed on the
> meeting [1] that they be dealt with *internally* via their *manager*.

Well, I agree there shouldn't be any special treatment, but in cases
where someone works on fedora as part of their job and has access or
privileges related to that job that they are misusing, bringing the
matter to their supervisiors attention would be a possible outcome. 

> In the end I want to point everybody to and Shaun's excellent blog
> entry [2] over at Gnome and pay a good attention to his entry "A
> community is self-governing"

great post. ;) 

> JBG

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20110306/ab66df5a/attachment.bin