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
Attachment:
pgpK1bQQf2CVd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
