18:08:34 <bpepple> #startmeeting cwg -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Community_Working_Group 18:08:34 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Feb 15 18:08:34 2011 UTC. The chair is bpepple. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:08:34 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:08:46 <bpepple> #meetingname cwg 18:08:46 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'cwg' 18:08:53 <bpepple> #topic roll call 18:09:01 * nirik is here. 18:09:04 * jsmith lurks 18:09:05 * red_alert 18:09:06 * bpepple is here. 18:09:22 * rbergeron is here 18:09:32 <red_alert> mjg59: ping? :) 18:09:36 <mjg59> Ah, better 18:09:37 <mjg59> Hi 18:09:50 <bpepple> #info red_alert nirik bpepple rbergeron mjg59 present 18:10:01 <bpepple> #topic COC/Enforcement drafts 18:10:33 <nirik> I made a few more minor changes, but overall I think we should ask for Board feedback on them soon, then more widespread feedback. 18:10:47 <bpepple> Ok, so did everyone get a chance to read the Enforcement draft nirik worked on. 18:10:48 <bpepple> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement 18:10:54 <bpepple> s/./?/ 18:11:46 <mjg59> I'm not thrilled with "If the problem only exists when interacting with one person, can you stop or reduce your interaction with them? " 18:12:22 <nirik> yeah, thats less than ideal for sure. 18:12:33 <mjg59> But otherwise I think this is a good starting point 18:12:59 * bpepple returns. 18:13:00 <red_alert> I was wondering whether we should say something about the possible ways of enforcement - e.g. removing people from lists or even from the community 18:13:14 <jsmith> or from planet? 18:13:14 <red_alert> but if we don't want to do that I'm very happy with the draft 18:13:29 <red_alert> jsmith: or from wiki, bugzilla, ... 18:13:52 * jsmith hopes we never have to completely remove someone from the project -- but we may have to 18:13:53 <red_alert> I figure people are already excluded from IRC channels, at least temporarily 18:13:56 <nirik> well, there could be lots of different things done... might be difficult to write them all up, and then if something was left out someone might say "thats not on the list" 18:14:11 <bpepple> nirik: true. 18:14:15 <jsmith> nirik: Good point 18:14:22 * rbergeron nods 18:14:40 <red_alert> jsmith: I think we all hope the enforcement stuff doesn't ever have to be used but unfortunately that's very unlikely, at least in a longer timeframe 18:14:41 <jsmith> It could be worded along the lines of "take appropriate measures to decrease conflict during mediation" 18:15:51 <red_alert> maybe plus a warning that exclusion from parts of or the whole community of one party might be a result of mediations 18:16:51 <nirik> sure, but that makes it sound more dire than it might be... 18:17:06 <nirik> could be a mediator could get both parties to appologise and go on with their life. ;) 18:17:42 <red_alert> I figure only the board can exclude someone from the project - that should probably be mentioned, too....maybe more like "every authority can exclude people from its respective <insert good word that can say list/channel/sig/project/etc>" 18:17:45 <bpepple> nirik: in a perfect world. ;) 18:17:59 <bpepple> If the CWG turns out not to be a temporary group, I question having the Board being a point for redress. Seems redundant to have 2 separate groups be a place to escalate disagreements. 18:18:14 <nirik> bpepple: yeah. Agreed on that as well. 18:18:41 <bpepple> not to mention it would make any decision we make pretty worthless. 18:19:32 <red_alert> bpepple: right but the board has to decide whether or not to delegate this to the CWG, not we 18:20:32 * nirik was kinda hoping the cwg was a temporary body, but I suppose we could be perm if we handle mediation/conflicts moving forward. 18:21:38 <nirik> in any case, I think we have enough here to ask for feedback... see if the Board likes the direction we have taken, etc. 18:22:20 <bpepple> nirik: right. I would be interested in getting others feedback. 18:23:06 <bpepple> rbergeron: were you still planning on making any edits to the coc draft? 18:23:18 <mjg59> With the exception of what I mentioned, I think I'm happy with this going to the board 18:23:34 <red_alert> actually the initial charter says the CWG has a long term mission/goal/strategy...and mediating is one of them :) 18:23:36 <nirik> we can strike that sentence if you want. Or re-word it. 18:23:56 <mjg59> I'd prefer us not to suggest that one of the first things you should do is just to try to avoid the problematic person 18:23:58 <nirik> red_alert: oh? I thought there was a 1 year sunset? 18:24:15 <mjg59> Because if everyone does that we run the risk of groups of people being effectively excluded from parts of the project 18:24:19 <nirik> if thats so, then we should perhaps remove the board section from there. 18:24:26 <bpepple> nirik: I believe that was correct. 18:24:47 <bpepple> the one year term that is. 18:25:21 <nirik> mjg59: yeah. I guess what I was going for there was "try and not antagonize someone you know doesn't handle your communication style well", but you're right, we should try and reduce that or we will get pockets of people who can't communicate. 18:25:22 <rbergeron> bpepple: I will ... wow, what just happened 18:25:51 <rbergeron> bpepple: I'll look at it. My only edits were grammatical, because they were making my eyes bleed. 18:25:54 <rbergeron> The content I'm kosher with. 18:25:56 <bpepple> rbergeron: spotty irc performance? 18:26:19 <red_alert> nirik: right, there's a final clause that says the charter needs to be revisited/-checked after one year 18:26:24 <bpepple> rbergeron: that's cool. just tell us when your done, and then we'll forward it to the board. 18:26:47 <nirik> should we stike the board section at the end? 18:26:58 <nirik> ie, CWG is the final step? 18:27:11 <rbergeron> bpepple: spotty interwebz performance 18:27:15 <bpepple> nirik: I think so. If this turns out to be a finite-time group it can be modified to show the board. 18:27:33 <red_alert> +1 18:27:49 <nirik> ok. Whoever is editing can do that? 18:27:55 <bpepple> but for now I think we should take the responsibility to redress disputes. 18:28:04 <bpepple> nirik: I'll do it. 18:28:52 <bpepple> ok, done. 18:29:23 <red_alert> btw, if anyone has a better wording for "buck stops here" that would be good...like it's not some term people learn in language school - I only learned it in this discussion from the context but people with weaker knowledge of the language might now be able to do so 18:29:30 <nirik> should we also strike the "If the problem only exists when interacting with one person, can you stop or reduce your interaction with them? section? 18:29:38 <red_alert> s/now/not/ 18:29:52 <nirik> red_alert: yeah, perhaps "Final decision takes place here." 18:29:58 <bpepple> nirik: yeah, I believe mjg59 wanted that, and seems reasonable to me. 18:30:03 <red_alert> nirik: yea, something along that line 18:30:45 <red_alert> nirik: +1 for striking it...it's what people will do anyway if they don't want to follow the further steps 18:30:59 * nirik is fine with removing it. 18:31:10 <bpepple> ok, changed the 'buck stops here' phrase. 18:31:12 <rbergeron> yeah 18:32:15 <bpepple> ok, removed the avoid interaction sentence. 18:32:22 <bpepple> anything else we need to do? 18:33:09 <red_alert> submit it to the board :) 18:33:20 <kanarip> perhaps consider who you can and/or cannot mediate between 18:33:56 <kanarip> some community members you can slap, some community members are immutable 18:34:18 <kanarip> (note i used "mediate" lightly :P) 18:34:42 <nirik> who would be immutable? the board? 18:35:12 <red_alert> even if they're immutable we can still mediate for a good solution - we just can't remove those people from the project or important lists 18:35:36 * bpepple is also not 100% who kanarip is referring to. 18:35:52 <kanarip> fedora engineering manager, release engineer, legal, those kinds 18:36:07 <red_alert> pretty much anyone who's paid by red hat for their fedora jobs 18:37:05 <mjg59> red_alert: In a way it's a lot easier to slap them then 18:37:15 <mjg59> There's management to complain to 18:37:17 <nirik> yeah, I would suggest we still could mediate there, but the sanctions would also include "talk to their manager" ? 18:37:32 <mjg59> Well, that'd be a late stage step 18:37:34 <bpepple> kanarip: In those situations we would take it to the project leader to address any issue. 18:37:39 <kanarip> in terms of "buck stops here we've made a decision", sometimes perhaps a dispute may arise with someone immutable and it's hard to then make a neutral decision in anyone's favor < does it make sense if i put it like that? 18:38:00 <red_alert> mjg59: if the manager is accessible to the community, yes...not all managers do I imagine without really knowing :) 18:38:17 <mjg59> red_alert: Oh, I'm sure we can deal with that 18:38:52 <Viking-Ice> Red Hat employ's not getting the same treatment as community members that's just wrong 18:39:13 <nirik> kanarip: sure, it does make it harder... not sure that noting that in the doc would be good or bad tho. 18:39:49 <red_alert> Viking-Ice: agreed...but it will be hard to get someone fired because he has a unresolveable dispute with someone 18:40:06 <kanarip> red_alert, in other words: immutable 18:40:11 <mjg59> Viking-Ice: The idea is to ensure that the situation is resolved with the minimum of harm to anyone 18:40:28 <nirik> I think that gets back to listing all the possible sanctions... which I think we should avoid, since it's going to depend on the situation and many other factors. 18:40:59 <bpepple> agreed. and that where in my opinion it needs to go to the project leader to work with internal RH managers to address the issues. 18:41:22 <kanarip> bpepple, would you state that in the doc then please 18:41:36 <bpepple> kanarip: I'm fine with doing that. 18:41:57 <nirik> well, I think we could mediate up to a point as much as with any other community members. If we reach a point where we cannot sanction someone for whatever reason, we should then escalate to FPL, etc. 18:42:02 <Viking-Ice> Just pointing out you cant have separated rules for community members and corporate employs that work on the project Red Hat or otherwize 18:42:14 <bpepple> nirik: agreed. 18:42:32 <red_alert> Viking-Ice: understood 18:42:35 * rbergeron nods 18:42:57 <mjg59> Viking-Ice: We absolutely *can*. The question is whether we should. 18:43:19 <kanarip> mjg59, is there an alternative? 18:43:31 <mjg59> I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that employees of the corporate sponsor of the project be held to higher standards 18:43:34 <Viking-Ice> if you want to further separation between community and Red Hat employs go right ahead.. 18:44:04 <red_alert> I'd not write down any RH (or immutable person) specific rules at all...it's the CWG's job to deal with all issues the same way and in a normal mediation the issue is resolved before it matters whether someone is immutable or not 18:44:17 <mjg59> Yeah, in most cases I'd expect this to make no difference 18:44:42 <nirik> so, it sounds like folks would like us to add something like: "sanctions could include, but are not limited to: banning from resources (either temp or perm), banning from all project resources, or communications with management in the event the party works on fedora as part of their employment" 18:44:43 <bpepple> mjg59: agreed. 18:45:12 <mjg59> nirik: I... don't know that there's an explicit requirement to add that 18:45:32 <nirik> yeah, I don't know that it adds much, but just trying to write up what I think kanarip is looking for? 18:45:37 * rbergeron isn't following the communications with maanagement part 18:45:41 <kanarip> actually i'd like a distinction between community members being eligible to get kicked out but for the small group of community members that get treated with kitten gloves 18:45:53 <kanarip> naturally i realize that needs to be formulated better then blunt 18:46:08 <mjg59> kanarip: Actually, I really don't know what you're trying to say 18:46:26 <kanarip> mjg59, yeah, us two have been there before haven't we? ;-) 18:46:53 <kanarip> either way, i've made my suggestion, i suppose it's up to you to decide 18:46:53 * nirik thinks the process should be the same for everyone. The end results/sanctions may be very different depending on the person and situation though. 18:47:11 <mjg59> If we reach the point in the resolution process that barring someone from project resources is necessary, then whether or not they're RH employees isn't relevant 18:47:34 <mjg59> The mechanism by which we bar them may well differ 18:47:34 <red_alert> +1 for what nirik said 18:48:27 <mjg59> If someone's employed to work on Fedora, and if that person turns out to be poisonous, then I'd hope we'd have the project leader's backing in getting that person replaced 18:48:45 <bpepple> mjg59: agreed. 18:49:14 <mjg59> I don't see any circumstances where we'd treat someone more leniantly just beacause they work for RH 18:49:22 * nirik thinks poisionous is overused, but yes, if they violate the code and need sanction. 18:49:26 <mjg59> There's no immutability 18:49:54 <mjg59> No more than the inherent difficulty in removing someone from a position of power, no matter how they got there 18:50:50 * rbergeron agrees with nirik - I think the process is the same. If we need to clarify in bold letters that IT DOESNT MATTER WHO PAYS UR BILLS just so everyone knows that there is no disctinction, then so be it. 18:51:36 <kanarip> if you're going to treat everyone exactly the same nevermind mentioning that indeed you do 18:52:02 <kanarip> i'll be waiting for the first time this judiciary is applied selectively forceful 18:52:49 <red_alert> I think every mentioning of a difference between volunteers and paid people harms the community - even if it's just mentioned to say they're treated equally...it makes two groups where there should be one 18:53:11 <mjg59> kanarip: If you're going to accuse us of acting in bad faith before we've done anything, then I don't think your contribution is helpful 18:53:32 <kanarip> mjg59, i have made no such accusation 18:54:03 <mjg59> 18:52 < kanarip> i'll be waiting for the first time this judiciary is applied selectively forceful 18:54:56 <nirik> so, any further amendments to the draft? I think we have driven off a bit... 18:54:59 <kanarip> mjg59, where is that an accusation of you acting in bad faith exactly? 18:55:13 <red_alert> I don't think it can hurt if we're being watched closely for unfair behavior - since we're supposed to be the respected independent mediator for all we have to strive for fairness anyway 18:55:22 <mjg59> kanarip: If we're acting in good faith, there won't be any selective enforcement 18:55:42 <mjg59> Oh, absolutely. We should be strongly criticised for any partisan behaviour. 18:55:56 <mjg59> But implying that we *are* going to engage in partisan behaviour is unreasonable. 18:56:07 <kanarip> mjg59, as i've been suggesting, how selectively enforcement is may not be up to this judiciary 18:56:49 <kanarip> that said, however, i've made my suggestion and you've made your decision 18:57:03 <bpepple> we've only got about 4 minutes left, so let's try to get back on topic. 18:57:04 * nirik notes we can try and improve things... and if this doesn't work or is selective, we can scrap it and try something else yet again. 18:57:11 <kanarip> it seems rather pointless to continue Arguing Over The Internet(TM) 18:57:48 <red_alert> so do we submit the coc and coc-enforcement as-is to the board? 18:57:52 <bpepple> ok, so are there any further amendments to the draft? Or is it ready to go to the board? 18:58:00 <mjg59> I'm ok with this going to the board now 18:58:07 * nirik has nothing. Send and lets see what feedback they have. 18:58:11 * bpepple is fine with it going to the board. 18:58:28 <bpepple> rbergeron. red_alert: ? 18:58:31 <nirik> I'd like though if the Board says "ok this is fine" we then ask for widespread feedback before making anything active. 18:58:34 <red_alert> +1 submit 18:58:39 <rbergeron> i'm happy with it going to the board. 18:58:45 <rbergeron> nirik: =1 18:58:46 <rbergeron> err 18:58:46 <rbergeron> +1 18:58:54 <red_alert> absolutely, nirik 18:58:58 <bpepple> ok, so who wants to forward it to the board? 18:59:03 <bpepple> nirik: agreed. 18:59:12 <bpepple> if no one speaks up, I will. ;) 18:59:49 <red_alert> I think if we ask rdieter he will do it...he promised the board to ask us for a status update anyway ;) 19:00:19 * rdieter perks up. 19:00:57 <bpepple> rdieter: you want to send our coc & enforcement drafts to the board, or you want one of us to do it? 19:01:28 <rdieter> doesn't matter, I can. though, imo, I don't think it's needed really. I'd recommend => fab 19:01:54 <rdieter> unless you'd rather get some more private feedback before going public? 19:02:12 <nirik> we could do that too... fine with me. 19:02:32 <bpepple> I'm fine with doing it either way. 19:03:00 <red_alert> I was thinking about getting the board's support first but I'm fine either way 19:04:03 <bpepple> ok, how we send it to the fab list then? 19:04:31 <nirik> sure 19:04:35 <rdieter> depends at what stage we're at. I mean any coc doesn't necessarily need any blessing, it's really all in your pervue, but if feedback is all you want for refinement, then fab is the way to go 19:04:51 <bpepple> rdieter: yeah, we are looking for feedback. 19:05:01 <rdieter> ok, bigger the better then 19:05:06 <nirik> yeah, I think we want feedback. See if we are going the right direction, missed anything obvious or could change things to work better. 19:05:52 <red_alert> we'll at least need the blessing for the enforcement stuff at some point tho...even some official delegation of the mediation's last stop probably 19:06:02 <bpepple> alright, so who wants to send it? 19:06:27 <bpepple> if no one steps up I will though I might not be able to do it until tomorrow. 19:06:50 <bpepple> going once.. 19:06:53 <bpepple> twice... 19:07:01 <bpepple> ok. I'll send it. 19:07:05 <red_alert> it's already tommorow in <4h for me anyway :) 19:07:22 <bpepple> #action bpepple will send the coc & enforcement draft to the fab list for feedback. 19:07:28 <nirik> thanks bpepple 19:07:42 <bpepple> alright, we are already over are time, so we should wrap it up. 19:08:01 <bpepple> anything else we need to discuss? otherwise let's put a fork in this meeting. 19:08:22 <bpepple> #endmeeting