Open Stack

> On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 10:56 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 05:04:51AM -0400, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> > > 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."
> > 
> > I like this proposal because it focuses on the carrot rather than
> > the stick, which is ultimately better for community cohesiveness
> > IMHO.
> 
> I like it too. A slight tweak of that would be to require candidates to
> sign the pledge publicly via an online form. We could invite the
> community as a whole to sign it too in order to have candidates'
> supporters covered.

Fair point, that would work for me also.

> >  It is already part of our community ethos that we can call
> > people out to publically debate / stand up & justify any & all
> > issues affecting the project whether they be related to the code,
> > architecture, or non-technical issues such as electioneering
> > behaviour.
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Before jumping headlong for a big stick to whack people with, I think
> > I'd expect to see examples of problems we've actually faced (as opposed
> > to vague hypotheticals), and a clear illustration that a self-policing
> > approach to the community interaction failed to address them. I've not
> > personally seen/experianced any problems that are so severe that they'd
> > suggest we need the ability to kick someone out of the community for
> > sending email !
> 
> Indeed. This discussion is happening in a vacuum for many people who do
> not know the details of the private emails and private campaign events
> which happened in the previous cycle.
> 
> The only one I know of first hand was a private email where the
> recipients quickly responded saying the email was out of line and the
> original sender apologized profusely. People can make mistakes in good
> faith and if we can deal with it quickly and maturely as a community,
> all the better.

Exactly.

Most realistic missteps that I can imagine could be dealt with
by a simple calling out of the error, then moving on quickly.

Simple, lightweight, a teachable moment.

No need for heavy-handed inquisitions IMHO if we trust our own
instincts as a community.

Cheers,
Eoghan

> In this example, the sender's apology could have bee followed up with
> "look, here's our code of conduct; sign it now, respect it in the
> future, and let that be the end of the matter".