On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:57:54 -0500 inode0 <inode0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Robyn Bergeron > <robyn.bergeron@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > The CWG has been taking into account feedback on the drafts we > > previously posted. The group is now seeking any further feedback > > and/or approval. > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/Code_of_Conduct_Draft > > This reads like a long-winded "be nice" which is probably what it is > intended to be I guess. Yep. > I don't know if it is my imagination or not but things seem to have > substantially improved lately. Yeah. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement > > While I find the Code of Conduct draft innocuous I don't feel the same > way about the Enforcement draft. While I am mostly fine with the first > three sections in this document I strongly dislike the blanket grant > of power to punish vague offenses to the CWG. > > "Violations of the Code of Conduct may be resolved by suggestions for > avoiding the problem in the future up to permanent exclusion from the > project, and anything in-between." Yeah, this was added after the last round of feedback where folks wanted a list of all possible actions. We didn't want to list everything (for the reasons you note below), but wanted to list the possible boundries, etc. > I know the intentions here are good and there is a desire to not try > to enumerate things since everything can't be enumerated but permanent > expulsion from the project for any action that the CWG deems a > violation of the Code of Conduct is a little too broad isn't it? I > understand that there is no intention to use that power except in > really extreme cases but that isn't specified here and honestly I > wouldn't want expulsion to be a delegated power. I would much prefer > to see it require an FPL+unanimous Board decision. Not speaking for the CWG, but just myself, I was hoping the CWG could help write up things and setup processes and then disappear. However, some folks would prefer they exist as a judicial branch type thing to handle desputes moving forward. One problem if CWG is handling disputes/problems and appeal can be made to the Board, is that anything contentious would just always be appealed to the Board. It's up to the Board to determine if they wish to delegate or would prefer to handle things themselves. Ultimately, it is their power/responsibility. Anyhow, as to the language, we could change that to note the expulsion from the project is something the Board would need to handle, or just drop the sentence entirely, or change it based on if the Board is going to mediate any disputes moving forward or delegate that power. Just my 2cents. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
