Discussion regarding Community Working Group and/or Ombudsman

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:16:33PM -0400, David Nalley wrote:
> During our discussion today I was initially convinced that the idea of
> a CWG/Ombudsman acting as mediator only was a good one. However now I
> am beginning to question that. Our discussion today centered around
> making this person(s)/group responsible only for mediation, and having
> extremely limited or no enforcement capabilities. I think the reasons
> for that were sound, but I am beginning to question the efficacy.
> 
> Effectively we'd be creating a paper tiger, with limited or no
> authority to which we'd funnel a ton of complaints - I can't imagine
> how demoralizing it would be to take all the complaints in the first
> place, but then only to be able to offer suggestions would take an
> incredible set of people, and I fear we'd burn them out very fast.
> 
> I notice that Gentoo has discontinued their ombudsman program (I sadly
> can't find the original charter for the position with a quick google,
> or the reason for discontinuation). In it's place they put a developer
> relations council, any member of which may singly  excommunicate a
> member from the project permanently, with the only appeal being to the
> full developer council. I don't think that is a direction Fedora
> should go, but I do find it interesting.
> 
> I am very concerned that we not repeat something akin to the 'Hall
> Monitors' issues. Specifically I am very worried that the Board (and I
> am speaking for myself only) would second-guess any delegated body's
> decisions if it became overly controversial.
>

I am concerned about that too.  However, I think that having a group that
specializes in mediation only is the best way to counteract that.  A group
that has enforcement powers but where the power of enforcement ultimately
lies with the Board (as is laid out in the Code of Conduct Enforcement
document) is always going to be subject to second-guessing on the part of
the Board.  Even if the present Board were to agree that the Board should
never change a decision made by that group, the next Board may well take
a more active role in decisions made.

By contrast, mediation works by *not* having the mediator make decisions.
Instead, the mediator facilitates communication between the parties
involved, works to have both sides understand the positions of the other,
and tries to get the parties to agree to a course of action on their own.
If the parties come to agreement due to the mediator, then there is no
escalation to the Board as the people involved have resolved their
differences already.

Another way to say this is that far from being a paper tiger, a group that
specializes in doing mediation is no tiger at all.  They are not here to
enforce a code of conduct and reprimand people who don't follow it, they're
here to help people understand each other's viewpoints and try to refine
their ideas to satisfy as many of the problems that the other one sees as
possible.

On the other hand, I think that some of the other people within the Board do
favor having a group that works to enforce the Code of Conduct.  That group,
however, seems set up to be second guessed by the Board quite frequently.
The idea seemed to be that the group could serve as the first people to
handle enforcement issues.  If the parties in the conflict were unhappy with
what happened they could then escalate to the Board.  How is that better
than how we setup Hall Monitors?

> I guess I am also
> skeptical of the number of problems that really need intervention. I
> understand there to be flare ups from time to time, but I doubt a
> formal mediator (or at least one past the channel ops or list
> owner/moderator) is needed in most cases. If there really exists so
> many serious problems as to need a dedicated mediator/team of
> mediators, perhaps there are bigger problems to be dealt with than the
> mediation process.
>
I don't see mediators as being limited to the kinds of conflicts that lead
to violations of the Code of Conduct.  I see them as being available to help
steer discussions in productive directions so that the conditions where
violations of the Code of Conduct occur are less common place.  Mediators
help people feel better about working on Fedora by making sure that the
people involved in a discussion have their thoughts heard and issues
addressed.

I also think the skills that mediators have would be beneficial for everyone
within Fedora to absorb.  If the need for mediation in Fedora was low,
mediators could increase the productivity of Fedora developers by training
them in techniques for listening to others, negotiating fairly, and other
techniques that make them more effective.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20110511/d49c099d/attachment.bin