Re: Discussion regarding Community Working Group and/or Ombudsman

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jared K. Smith
<jsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Now that the Fedora Board has formally accepted the documents prepared
> by the Community Working Group regarding a code of conduct and the
> enforcement of the code of conduct, I'd like to start a discussion
> regarding the longer-term role of the Community Working Group.  While
> the enforcement of the code of conduct (particularly in serious
> circumstances) should take place at the Board level, I think there's
> general agreement that it might be helpful to have a person or group
> dedicated to helping mediate conflicts and referring cases to the
> Fedora Board as necessary.  That group could be the CWG, an elected
> ombudsman, or something else.
>
> What would you like to see?
>

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 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.

That said, I am sure the CWG has at least considered this possibility,
and I'd like to hear their thoughts. You've produced a CoC and
Enforcement draft, and have almost 1/2 of your originally chartered
time remaining, what are your plans going forward, what roles do you
envision being able or wanting to evolve into?
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Outreach]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora KDE]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Linux Audio Users]

  Powered by Linux