Open Stack

Please remember that openstack-tc is specifically *not* a discussion
list. It's a convenient way to reach TC members. We should be having all
our important discussions on open mailing-lists, not on moderated ones.

Eoghan: could you repost this email to openstack-dev or the openstack
general ML ?

Everyone else (TC members included): could you follow-up there ?

( I know I let the original thread develop here, but I hate the "elite"
feeling (and the constant moderation effort) of having the discussion
here. The right way is to post to a public discussion list, and then if
you want to make sure the TC is involved, send a separate email to -tc
list pointing to the main thread and asking TC members to follow-up there. )

Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> 
> TL;DR: how about we adopt a "soft enforcement" model, relying 
>        on sound judgement and good faith within the community?
> 
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> I'm concerned that the "expected election behaviour" review[1]
> is not converging on the optimal approach, partially due to the
> initial concentration on the procedural aspects of the proposal.
> 
> This concentration was natural enough, due to shortcomings such
> as the lack of any provision for a right of reply, or the
> fuzziness around who was capable of deciding a violation had
> occurred and imposing the stiff penalties envisaged.
> 
> However, I think we should take a step back at this stage and
> reconsider the whole approach. Looking at this in the round, as
> I see it, the approach mooted seems to suffer from a fundamental
> flaw.
> 
> Specifically, in holding individuals to the community code of
> conduct in a very *strict* sense (under pain of severe career
> damage), when much of that code is written in an aspirational
> style, and so is not very suitable for use as an *objective*
> standard.
> 
> The reference to "the spirit of the OpenStack ideals" ideals is
> even more problematic in that sense. Ideals by their nature are
> *idealized* versions of reality. So IMHO it's not workable to
> infuse an aspiration to meet these laudable ideals, with the
> language of abuse, violations, investigation, punishment etc.
> In fact it strikes me as a tad Orwellian to do so.
> 
> So I wanted to throw an alternative idea out onto the table ...
> 
> How about we rely instead on the values and attributes that
> actually make our community strong?
> 
> Specifically: maturity, honesty, and a self-correcting nature.
> 
> How about we simply require that each candidate for a TC or PTL
> election gives a simple undertaking in their self-nomination mail,
> along the lines of:
> 
> "I undertake to respect the election process, as required by the
> community code of conduct.
> 
> I also undertake not to engage in campaign practices that the
> community has considered objectionable in the past, including but
> not limited to, unsolicited mail shots and private campaign events.
> 
> If my behavior during this election period does not live up to those
> standards, please feel free to call me out on it on this mailing
> list and/or withhold your vote."
> 
> We then rely on:
> 
>   (a) the self-policing nature of an honest, open community
> 
> and:
> 
>   (b) the maturity and sound judgement within that community giving
>       us the ability to quickly spot and disregard any frivolous
>       reports of mis-behavior
> 
> So no need for heavy-weight inquisitions, no need to interrupt the
> election process, no need for handing out of stiff penalties such
> as termination of membership.
> 
> Instead, we simply rely on good faith and sound judgement within
> the community.
> 
> TBH I think we're pretty good at making ourselves heard when
> needs be, and also pretty good at filtering through the noise. 
> 
> So I would trust the electorate to apply their judgement, filter
> out those reports of bad practice that they consider frivolous or
> tending to make mischief, or conversely to withhold their vote if
> they consider the practice reported to be unacceptable.
> 
> If someone has already cast their vote when the report of some
> questionable behavior surfaces, well so be it. The electorate
> has a long memory and most successful candidates end up running
> again for subsequent elections (e.g. a follow-on term as PTL,
> or for the TC).
> 
> The key strength of this alternative approach IMO is that it
> directly relies on the *actual* values of the community, as
> opposed to attempting to codify those values, a priori.
> 
> Just my $0.02 ...
> 
> Cheers,
> Eoghan
> 
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/98675
> [2] http://www.openstack.org/legal/community-code-of-conduct
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-TC mailing list
> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
> 

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)