On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jared K. Smith <jsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Now that the Fedora Board has formally accepted the documents prepared > by the Community Working Group regarding a code of conduct and the > enforcement of the code of conduct, I'd like to start a discussion > regarding the longer-term role of the Community Working Group. While > the enforcement of the code of conduct (particularly in serious > circumstances) should take place at the Board level, I think there's > general agreement that it might be helpful to have a person or group > dedicated to helping mediate conflicts and referring cases to the > Fedora Board as necessary. That group could be the CWG, an elected > ombudsman, or something else. > > What would you like to see? > 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 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. That said, I am sure the CWG has at least considered this possibility, and I'd like to hear their thoughts. You've produced a CoC and Enforcement draft, and have almost 1/2 of your originally chartered time remaining, what are your plans going forward, what roles do you envision being able or wanting to evolve into? _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
