18:00:03 <bpepple> #startmeeting cwg -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Community_Working_Group
18:00:03 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Jan 18 18:00:03 2011 UTC.  The chair is bpepple. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:03 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:00:05 <bpepple> #meetingname cwg
18:00:05 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'cwg'
18:00:22 <bpepple> ping nirik rbergeron mjg59
18:00:24 * nirik is around.
18:01:14 <bpepple> #topic roll call
18:01:17 * nirik is around.
18:01:24 * bpepple is here.
18:02:14 * red_alert here late
18:02:47 <bpepple> red_alert: np. we're still waiting for a couple of folks.
18:04:48 <bpepple> #info nirik red_alert bpepple present
18:05:45 <bpepple> ok, we can probably start discussing mjg59's COC draft a bit, and hopefully rbergeron & mjg59 will show up in a bit.
18:05:57 <nirik> ok.
18:06:17 <bpepple> #topic Code of Conduct draft - http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/cwg/2011-January/000036.html
18:06:23 <nirik> I don't have any particular problems with the draft, but I will ask: what does it get us over 'be excellent'? :)
18:07:34 <hicham> we really need one
18:07:44 <hicham> +1 to mjg59
18:07:49 <bpepple> nirik: I think it goes into a bit more detail of what's acceptable behavior, since the 'be excellent' motto seemed to be misunderstood at times.
18:08:49 * rdieter_work lurks, hi.
18:08:55 <nirik> well, I suppose, but do we see people being more free to point to a section of this and say "you are not doing this" over "you are not being excellent" ?
18:09:23 <bpepple> I like mjg59's draft, but I wouldn't mind putting in a section similar to the 'Be collaborative' from the KDE COC.
18:10:41 <bpepple> nirik: possibly.
18:11:21 <nirik> whats the collabroative section of the kde one?
18:11:38 <bpepple> nirik: http://www.kde.org/code-of-conduct/
18:11:40 <red_alert> I like mjg59's draft very much but I'd add a "to err is human" section that says not to spend time/ressources on blaming others but instead to help correct the fault / learn from the fault
18:12:59 <red_alert> also I was wondering whether "from coding through to bug reporting" really gives a good overview of how far contributors are spread task-wise, i.e. coding to marketing or coding to design might give a better impression
18:13:48 <nirik> bpepple: yeah, I like the section, but not sure it really fits...
18:13:49 <bpepple> red_alert: yeah, that's not a bad suggestion.
18:14:00 <red_alert> and I think I'd make more clear that we have to deal with different languages, traditions and cultures which tends to create problems and people should keep that in mind
18:14:18 <nirik> I might suggest we add the open minded section from the freenode catalysts guideline as well...
18:14:22 <nirik> but not sure how much it adds.
18:14:24 <bpepple> nirik: yeah, I like the general sentiment but not really sure how to work that in our coc.
18:14:43 <nirik> "Open-minded. It's easy to make assumptions about other people's motivations. When you decide someone is behaving maliciously, you've made an assumption about their motivation which may be difficult to disprove. Try to make your assumptions about other people's motivations as positive as possible."
18:15:22 <bpepple> rdieter: You have any thoughts or suggestions about mjg59's code of conduct draft?
18:17:45 <nirik> I guess I would say we should look at making a draft wiki page, and then see about any edits we want to make to it...
18:18:13 <red_alert> +1
18:18:14 <bpepple> nirik: agreed.
18:18:41 <rdieter_work> bpepple: an excellent start.  could work as-is, though I'm biased and would prefer it closer to the kde coc (which includes sections on collaboration, where/how to support each other, etc...)
18:18:44 <red_alert> and once we sort of agreed on a version we can go and ask for input from the board, committees and SIGs
18:19:14 <bpepple> rdieter_work: yeah, I'm a fan of the KDE COC also.
18:19:17 <nirik> perhaps a session at fudcon would be also good to gather feedback.
18:20:11 <bpepple> nirik: not a bad idea.
18:20:14 <red_alert> nirik: right
18:20:31 <nirik> I think mjg59 wanted to have ours more simple and leave out sections on project management, etc.
18:20:40 * nirik is a fan of simple.
18:21:12 <bpepple> I think the KDE one if fairly simple, but I understand if others don't. ;)
18:21:16 <mjg59> Crap, sorry, I got the time wrong
18:21:23 <bpepple> mjg59: no worries.
18:22:09 <red_alert> I also like the KDE one but agree with nirik - I figure how to collaborate, where/how to support each other and such are better regulated within the individual groups
18:22:16 <mjg59> bpepple: I left out the "Be collaborative" section because it seemed to be closer to what we discussed last week regarding whether we wanted to have our remit cover workflow interactions
18:22:17 <bpepple> #info mjg59 present
18:22:53 <rbergeron> hi guys, sorry.
18:23:06 <bpepple> rbergeron: hi.
18:23:07 * rbergeron is in fudcon arrangements fun.
18:23:17 <bpepple> #info rbergeron present
18:23:33 <rbergeron> :)
18:23:35 <mjg59> But I agree with the idea of adding emphasis about not concentrating on blame
18:23:45 <hicham> +1
18:23:49 <mjg59> That would seem to fit into the "When we disagree" section
18:24:20 * rbergeron is also baffled as to why her window didn't light up with a name ping :(
18:24:29 <hicham> I hope that would make fedora-devel ML cleaner
18:24:33 <mjg59> Also, agree regarding the range of contributors
18:24:51 <nirik> Perhaps something like "Be quick to appologize and avoid placing blame on anyone when interactions are less than excellent."
18:25:13 <mjg59> Yes, that sounds good
18:26:06 <nirik> hicham: hard to say. What parts of this code do you feel people have violated?
18:26:12 <nirik> (without naming names please)
18:26:28 <mjg59> nirik: I think there's plenty of cases of people not being respectful
18:26:53 <hicham> nirik : needless to mention the "wars" that the ML have seen
18:26:57 <mjg59> Including myself
18:27:01 <nirik> yeah, possibly so.
18:27:21 <mjg59> People don't tend to start discussions assuming good faith
18:27:23 <nirik> but I think mostly people have stopped short of personal attacks (althought there are exceptions)
18:27:25 <bpepple> nirik: I can think of a few cases just from the last two months or so. There was one in particular on the board public list in december that was pretty bad.
18:28:12 <mjg59> It's possible to create a poisonous atmosphere without engaging in outright insulting or abusive behaviour, and I think we want to try to discourage that
18:28:13 <nirik> ok, say we had this code in place. What would we have done then? :)
18:28:34 <mjg59> nirik: Well, that's what we were supposed to talk about next :)
18:29:06 <mjg59> Has everyone seen the discussion about OpenSuse removing someone from the project?
18:29:11 <nirik> yeah. Really I think the answer is: Notify the management channel of that thing... and ask them to deal with it. What we would suggest for dealing with it, I am not sure. ;)
18:29:21 <nirik> mjg59: yeah, but it had no details at all. ;(
18:29:47 <bpepple> mjg59: no, been on the road the last few weeks, so I hadn't heard about that.
18:29:52 <hicham> removing someone is an extreme measure
18:29:55 <red_alert> mjg59: I haven't...I heard it happened, though
18:30:08 <mjg59> nirik: From context, it seems that there was one individual who behaved in an abrupt manner that discouraged many people from working with him (and, in some cases, the project)
18:30:39 <nirik> yeah. It's hard to say what the behavior was tho... I understand why they don't want to go into details, but it makes it hard to learn from it.
18:31:16 <mjg59> Well, what I was really wondering was whether we'd be willing to recommend to the board that their list of possible sanctions include complete removal from the project
18:31:33 <nirik> I suppose in extreme cases.
18:31:34 <mjg59> And what kind of pattern of behaviour would be required for that
18:31:45 <nirik> a lot.
18:31:51 <hicham> seems reasonable
18:31:58 <mjg59> Assuming that these are social problems, rather than something like a project contributor engaging in illegal activities with project resources
18:32:26 <red_alert> yes, it's been social problems
18:32:28 <mjg59> However, one followup to the OpenSuse case:
18:32:54 <mjg59> Some of the pushback against the board's decision was along the lines of "People could just have killfiled and /ignored him"
18:33:09 <mjg59> I think that's only reasonable up to a point
18:33:17 <nirik> I think we would need to be carefull to have the bar very high. I know some people who are disliked, or have abrasive personalities, but I think they do contribute to the project.
18:33:56 <mjg59> nirik: Oh, definitely. But we do also need to weigh somebody's contributions to any possible loss of contribution due to people disliking the atmosphere
18:34:07 <nirik> yeah. Some channels make it hard to ignore people, or present a poor impression to new contributors, etc.
18:34:24 <mjg59> I'm not claiming that that's the case, but "I can be an asshole because I write thousands of lines of code you depend on" isn't something we should support (IMHO)
18:34:25 <bpepple> mjg59: +1
18:35:16 <mjg59> We should be as willing to describe somebody's behaviour as unacceptable regardless of whether they've filed one bug three years ago or whether they're a high profile contributor
18:35:33 <red_alert> +1
18:36:01 <nirik> sure, but "sent one abusive email" should be clearly different from "presents a cloud of doom over an entire subproject"
18:36:07 <mjg59> Oh, yes
18:36:19 <bpepple> nirik: definitely.
18:36:26 <mjg59> Everyone makes mistakes
18:37:12 <mjg59> I may have to step out for 5 minutes in a moment
18:37:40 <nirik> so, perhaps we should write up some plan on enforcement... such as: "ping the management of the area where things are happening", wait. If the person violating the c-o-c keeps doing so, or doesn't like the way they were handled, escalate to mediation (appointed by us? board?), if that fails after some time, esclate to us? board?
18:37:44 <red_alert> I think there's been no case where this should have been considered in the past in Fedora (and until now OpenSUSE) which shows the high bar to exclude someone
18:38:15 <nirik> ie, have a defined process for both contributors and managers of various resources.
18:38:25 <mjg59> nirik: Board, I think (possibly based on our recommendations?)
18:40:00 <nirik> also, might be nice to have a feedback channel for recomendations... ie, listowner foo is notified that someone is behaving badly, would be good if they could ask us or the board or some other group, "hey, what do you think I should do here?"
18:40:38 <bpepple> not a bad idea.
18:41:23 <mjg59> Yeah, and we should proably document that
18:41:26 <nirik> and/or resources like "how to run a nice mailing list" or "how to run a irc channel" or whatever (if we feel it's in our scope to make those)
18:43:45 <bpepple> ok, going back to the COC for a second. I didn't hear anyone have a major disagreement's with mjg59's draft, so how about we put the draft on the wiki and tweak it a bit with some of the suggestions from here.
18:44:01 <red_alert> +1
18:44:07 <bpepple> and the present it to the mailing list & fudcon for further feedback?
18:44:46 <nirik> fine with me... I'd like to look over it again with the changes before we send it anywhere, but sure...
18:47:27 <bpepple> oh yeah, I want to make sure we are all in agreement before sending out to the rest of the project for feedback. ;)
18:47:56 <red_alert> right
18:48:10 <bpepple> Anyone want to put the draft on the wiki? if not, I will.
18:49:39 <bpepple> #action bpepple will put the Code of Conduct draft on the wiki.
18:50:18 <nirik> I could possibly look at a draft/basic enforcement guideline wiki page over the next week...
18:50:47 <bpepple> nirik: cool. that was the next thing I was going to mention.
18:51:30 <bpepple> nirik: you want me to make that an action item in the minutes?
18:51:55 <nirik> sure.
18:51:59 <nirik> help welcome
18:52:43 <bpepple> #action nirik will work on putting a basic code of conduct enforcement guideline draft on the wiki.
18:53:04 <bpepple> ok, we've got about 5 minutes left. anything else folks want to discuss?
18:53:13 <red_alert> nirik: just ask for input in #fedora-cwg or on the list where you need it :)
18:53:40 <nirik> mjg59 isn't going to be at fucon tempe, but everyone else is?
18:53:46 <mjg59> Araid not
18:53:51 <bpepple> I won't be there either.
18:53:51 <mjg59> I'll be missing next week
18:54:00 <nirik> bpepple: ;(
18:54:01 <bpepple> do we want a meeting next week?
18:54:15 * nirik will be around.
18:54:23 * bpepple will be around also.
18:54:52 <mjg59> I'll be following the list, though
18:54:58 <mjg59> And I'll catch up afterwards
18:55:12 <bpepple> cool.
18:55:39 <bpepple> anything else? otherwise I think we can put a fork in this meeting.
18:55:51 <red_alert> I'll already fly to the US on Sunday so depending on internet availabilty in my hotel and jet-lag I can make it to next weeks meeting or not ;)
18:57:16 <bpepple> #endmeeting