Open Stack

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 09:29:19AM -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Daniel P. Berrange's message of 2015-02-17 02:37:50 -0800:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:14:39PM +0100, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> > > > ## Cores are *NOT* special
> > > > 
> > > > At some point, for some reason that is unknown to me, this message
> > > > changed and the feeling of core's being some kind of superheros became
> > > > a thing. It's gotten far enough to the point that I've came to know
> > > > that some projects even have private (flagged with +s), password
> > > > protected, irc channels for core reviewers.
> > > 
> > > This is seriously disturbing.
> > > 
> > > If you're one of those core reviewers hanging out on a private channel,
> > > please contact me privately: I'd love to hear from you why we failed as
> > > a community at convincing you that an open channel is the place to be.
> > > 
> > > No public shaming, please: education first.
> > 
> > I've been thinking about these last few lines a bit, I'm not entirely
> > comfortable with the dynamic this sets up.
> > 
> > What primarily concerns me is the issue of community accountability. A core
> > feature of OpenStack's project & individual team governance is the idea
> > of democractic elections, where the individual contributors can vote in
> > people who they think will lead OpenStack in a positive way, or conversely
> > hold leadership to account by voting them out next time. The ability of
> > individuals contributors to exercise this freedom though, relies on the
> > voters being well informed about what is happening in the community.
> > 
> > If cases of bad community behaviour, such as use of passwd protected IRC
> > channels, are always primarily dealt with via further private communications,
> > then we are denying the voters the information they need to hold people to
> > account. I can understand the desire to avoid publically shaming people
> > right away, because the accusations may be false, or may be arising from a
> > simple mis-understanding, but at some point genuine issues like this need
> > to be public. Without this we make it difficult for contributors to make
> > an informed decision at future elections.
> > 
> > Right now, this thread has left me wondering whether there are still any
> > projects which are using password protected IRC channels, or whether they
> > have all been deleted, and whether I will be unwittingly voting for people
> > who supported their use in future openstack elections.
> > 
> 
> Shaming a person is a last resort, when that person may not listen to
> reason. It's sometimes necessary to bring shame to a practice, but even
> then, those who are participating are now draped in shame as well and
> will have a hard time saving face.

This really isn't about trying to shame people, rather it is about
having accountability in the open.

If the accusations of running private IRC channels were false, then
yes, it would be an example of shaming to then publicise those who
were accused.

Since it is confirmed that private password protected IRC channels
do in fact exist, then we need to have the explanations as to why
this was done be made in public. The community can then decide
whether the explanations offered provide sufficient justification.
This isn't about shaming, it is about each individual being able
to decide for themselves as to whether what happened was acceptable,
given the explanations.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|