18:08:34 <bpepple> #startmeeting cwg -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Community_Working_Group
18:08:34 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Feb 15 18:08:34 2011 UTC.  The chair is bpepple. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:08:34 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:08:46 <bpepple> #meetingname cwg
18:08:46 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'cwg'
18:08:53 <bpepple> #topic roll call
18:09:01 * nirik is here.
18:09:04 * jsmith lurks
18:09:05 * red_alert 
18:09:06 * bpepple is here.
18:09:22 * rbergeron is here
18:09:32 <red_alert> mjg59: ping? :)
18:09:36 <mjg59> Ah, better
18:09:37 <mjg59> Hi
18:09:50 <bpepple> #info red_alert nirik bpepple rbergeron mjg59 present
18:10:01 <bpepple> #topic COC/Enforcement drafts
18:10:33 <nirik> I made a few more minor changes, but overall I think we should ask for Board feedback on them soon, then more widespread feedback.
18:10:47 <bpepple> Ok, so did everyone get a chance to read the Enforcement draft nirik worked on.
18:10:48 <bpepple> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement
18:10:54 <bpepple> s/./?/
18:11:46 <mjg59> I'm not thrilled with "If the problem only exists when interacting with one person, can you stop or reduce your interaction with them? "
18:12:22 <nirik> yeah, thats less than ideal for sure.
18:12:33 <mjg59> But otherwise I think this is a good starting point
18:12:59 * bpepple returns.
18:13:00 <red_alert> I was wondering whether we should say something about the possible ways of enforcement - e.g. removing people from lists or even from the community
18:13:14 <jsmith> or from planet?
18:13:14 <red_alert> but if we don't want to do that I'm very happy with the draft
18:13:29 <red_alert> jsmith: or from wiki, bugzilla, ...
18:13:52 * jsmith hopes we never have to completely remove someone from the project -- but we may have to
18:13:53 <red_alert> I figure people are already excluded from IRC channels, at least temporarily
18:13:56 <nirik> well, there could be lots of different things done... might be difficult to write them all up, and then if something was left out someone might say "thats not on the list"
18:14:11 <bpepple> nirik: true.
18:14:15 <jsmith> nirik: Good point
18:14:22 * rbergeron nods
18:14:40 <red_alert> jsmith: I think we all hope the enforcement stuff doesn't ever have to be used but unfortunately that's very unlikely, at least in a longer timeframe
18:14:41 <jsmith> It could be worded along the lines of "take appropriate measures to decrease conflict during mediation"
18:15:51 <red_alert> maybe plus a warning that exclusion from parts of or the whole community of one party might be a result of mediations
18:16:51 <nirik> sure, but that makes it sound more dire than it might be...
18:17:06 <nirik> could be a mediator could get both parties to appologise and go on with their life. ;)
18:17:42 <red_alert> I figure only the board can exclude someone from the project - that should probably be mentioned, too....maybe more like "every authority can exclude people from its respective <insert good word that can say list/channel/sig/project/etc>"
18:17:45 <bpepple> nirik: in a perfect world. ;)
18:17:59 <bpepple> If the CWG turns out not to be a temporary group, I question having the Board being a point for redress. Seems redundant to have 2 separate groups be a place to escalate disagreements.
18:18:14 <nirik> bpepple: yeah. Agreed on that as well.
18:18:41 <bpepple> not to mention it would make any decision we make pretty worthless.
18:19:32 <red_alert> bpepple: right but the board has to decide whether or not to delegate this to the CWG, not we
18:20:32 * nirik was kinda hoping the cwg was a temporary body, but I suppose we could be perm if we handle mediation/conflicts moving forward.
18:21:38 <nirik> in any case, I think we have enough here to ask for feedback... see if the Board likes the direction we have taken, etc.
18:22:20 <bpepple> nirik: right. I would be interested in getting others feedback.
18:23:06 <bpepple> rbergeron: were you still planning on making any edits to the coc draft?
18:23:18 <mjg59> With the exception of what I mentioned, I think I'm happy with this going to the board
18:23:34 <red_alert> actually the initial charter says the CWG has a long term mission/goal/strategy...and mediating is one of them :)
18:23:36 <nirik> we can strike that sentence if you want. Or re-word it.
18:23:56 <mjg59> I'd prefer us not to suggest that one of the first things you should do is just to try to avoid the problematic person
18:23:58 <nirik> red_alert: oh? I thought there was a 1 year sunset?
18:24:15 <mjg59> Because if everyone does that we run the risk of groups of people being effectively excluded from parts of the project
18:24:19 <nirik> if thats so, then we should perhaps remove the board section from there.
18:24:26 <bpepple> nirik: I believe that was correct.
18:24:47 <bpepple> the one year term that is.
18:25:21 <nirik> mjg59: yeah. I guess what I was going for there was "try and not antagonize someone you know doesn't handle your communication style well", but you're right, we should try and reduce that or we will get pockets of people who can't communicate.
18:25:22 <rbergeron> bpepple: I will ... wow, what just happened
18:25:51 <rbergeron> bpepple: I'll look at it. My only edits were grammatical, because they were making my eyes bleed.
18:25:54 <rbergeron> The content I'm kosher with.
18:25:56 <bpepple> rbergeron: spotty irc performance?
18:26:19 <red_alert> nirik: right, there's a final clause that says the charter needs to be revisited/-checked after one year
18:26:24 <bpepple> rbergeron: that's cool. just tell us when your done, and then we'll forward it to the board.
18:26:47 <nirik> should we stike the board section at the end?
18:26:58 <nirik> ie, CWG is the final step?
18:27:11 <rbergeron> bpepple: spotty interwebz performance
18:27:15 <bpepple> nirik: I think so. If this turns out to be a finite-time group it can be modified to show the board.
18:27:33 <red_alert> +1
18:27:49 <nirik> ok. Whoever is editing can do that?
18:27:55 <bpepple> but for now I think we should take the responsibility to redress disputes.
18:28:04 <bpepple> nirik: I'll do it.
18:28:52 <bpepple> ok, done.
18:29:23 <red_alert> btw, if anyone has a better wording for "buck stops here" that would be good...like it's not some term people learn in language school - I only learned it in this discussion from the context but people with weaker knowledge of the language might now be able to do so
18:29:30 <nirik> should we also strike the  "If the problem only exists when interacting with one person, can you stop or reduce your interaction with them? section?
18:29:38 <red_alert> s/now/not/
18:29:52 <nirik> red_alert: yeah, perhaps "Final decision takes place here."
18:29:58 <bpepple> nirik: yeah, I believe mjg59 wanted that, and seems reasonable to me.
18:30:03 <red_alert> nirik: yea, something along that line
18:30:45 <red_alert> nirik: +1 for striking it...it's what people will do anyway if they don't want to follow the further steps
18:30:59 * nirik is fine with removing it.
18:31:10 <bpepple> ok, changed the 'buck stops here' phrase.
18:31:12 <rbergeron> yeah
18:32:15 <bpepple> ok, removed the avoid interaction sentence.
18:32:22 <bpepple> anything else we need to do?
18:33:09 <red_alert> submit it to the board :)
18:33:20 <kanarip> perhaps consider who you can and/or cannot mediate between
18:33:56 <kanarip> some community members you can slap, some community members are immutable
18:34:18 <kanarip> (note i used "mediate" lightly :P)
18:34:42 <nirik> who would be immutable? the board?
18:35:12 <red_alert> even if they're immutable we can still mediate for a good solution - we just can't remove those people from the project or important lists
18:35:36 * bpepple is also not 100% who kanarip is referring to.
18:35:52 <kanarip> fedora engineering manager, release engineer, legal, those kinds
18:36:07 <red_alert> pretty much anyone who's paid by red hat for their fedora jobs
18:37:05 <mjg59> red_alert: In a way it's a lot easier to slap them then
18:37:15 <mjg59> There's management to complain to
18:37:17 <nirik> yeah, I would suggest we still could mediate there, but the sanctions would also include "talk to their manager" ?
18:37:32 <mjg59> Well, that'd be a late stage step
18:37:34 <bpepple> kanarip: In those situations we would take it to the project leader to address any issue.
18:37:39 <kanarip> in terms of "buck stops here we've made a decision", sometimes perhaps a dispute may arise with someone immutable and it's hard to then make a neutral decision in anyone's favor < does it make sense if i put it like that?
18:38:00 <red_alert> mjg59: if the manager is accessible to the community, yes...not all managers do I imagine without really knowing :)
18:38:17 <mjg59> red_alert: Oh, I'm sure we can deal with that
18:38:52 <Viking-Ice> Red Hat employ's not getting the same treatment as community members that's just wrong
18:39:13 <nirik> kanarip: sure, it does make it harder... not sure that noting that in the doc would be good or bad tho.
18:39:49 <red_alert> Viking-Ice: agreed...but it will be hard to get someone fired because he has a unresolveable dispute with someone
18:40:06 <kanarip> red_alert, in other words: immutable
18:40:11 <mjg59> Viking-Ice: The idea is to ensure that the situation is resolved with the minimum of harm to anyone
18:40:28 <nirik> I think that gets back to listing all the possible sanctions... which I think we should avoid, since it's going to depend on the situation and many other factors.
18:40:59 <bpepple> agreed. and that where in my opinion it needs to go to the project leader to work with internal RH managers to address the issues.
18:41:22 <kanarip> bpepple, would you state that in the doc then please
18:41:36 <bpepple> kanarip: I'm fine with doing that.
18:41:57 <nirik> well, I think we could mediate up to a point as much as with any other community members. If we reach a point where we cannot sanction someone for whatever reason, we should then escalate to FPL, etc.
18:42:02 <Viking-Ice> Just pointing out you cant have separated rules for community members and corporate employs that work on the project Red Hat or otherwize
18:42:14 <bpepple> nirik: agreed.
18:42:32 <red_alert> Viking-Ice: understood
18:42:35 * rbergeron nods
18:42:57 <mjg59> Viking-Ice: We absolutely *can*. The question is whether we should.
18:43:19 <kanarip> mjg59, is there an alternative?
18:43:31 <mjg59> I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that employees of the corporate sponsor of the project be held to higher standards
18:43:34 <Viking-Ice> if you want to further separation between community and Red Hat employs go right ahead..
18:44:04 <red_alert> I'd not write down any RH (or immutable person) specific rules at all...it's the CWG's job to deal with all issues the same way and in a normal mediation the issue is resolved before it matters whether someone is immutable or not
18:44:17 <mjg59> Yeah, in most cases I'd expect this to make no difference
18:44:42 <nirik> so, it sounds like folks would like us to add something like: "sanctions could include, but are not limited to: banning from resources (either temp or perm), banning from all project resources, or communications with management in the event the party works on fedora as part of their employment"
18:44:43 <bpepple> mjg59: agreed.
18:45:12 <mjg59> nirik: I... don't know that there's an explicit requirement to add that
18:45:32 <nirik> yeah, I don't know that it adds much, but just trying to write up what I think kanarip is looking for?
18:45:37 * rbergeron isn't following the communications with maanagement part
18:45:41 <kanarip> actually i'd like a distinction between community members being eligible to get kicked out but for the small group of community members that get treated with kitten gloves
18:45:53 <kanarip> naturally i realize that needs to be formulated better then blunt
18:46:08 <mjg59> kanarip: Actually, I really don't know what you're trying to say
18:46:26 <kanarip> mjg59, yeah, us two have been there before haven't we? ;-)
18:46:53 <kanarip> either way, i've made my suggestion, i suppose it's up to you to decide
18:46:53 * nirik thinks the process should be the same for everyone. The end results/sanctions may be very different depending on the person and situation though.
18:47:11 <mjg59> If we reach the point in the resolution process that barring someone from project resources is necessary, then whether or not they're RH employees isn't relevant
18:47:34 <mjg59> The mechanism by which we bar them may well differ
18:47:34 <red_alert> +1 for what nirik said
18:48:27 <mjg59> If someone's employed to work on Fedora, and if that person turns out to be poisonous, then I'd hope we'd have the project leader's backing in getting that person replaced
18:48:45 <bpepple> mjg59: agreed.
18:49:14 <mjg59> I don't see any circumstances where we'd treat someone more leniantly just beacause they work for RH
18:49:22 * nirik thinks poisionous is overused, but yes, if they violate the code and need sanction.
18:49:26 <mjg59> There's no immutability
18:49:54 <mjg59> No more than the inherent difficulty in removing someone from a position of power, no matter how they got there
18:50:50 * rbergeron agrees with nirik - I think the process is the same.  If we need to clarify in bold letters that IT DOESNT MATTER WHO PAYS UR BILLS just so everyone knows that there is no disctinction, then so be it.
18:51:36 <kanarip> if you're going to treat everyone exactly the same nevermind mentioning that indeed you do
18:52:02 <kanarip> i'll be waiting for the first time this judiciary is applied selectively forceful
18:52:49 <red_alert> I think every mentioning of a difference between volunteers and paid people harms the community - even if it's just mentioned to say they're treated equally...it makes two groups where there should be one
18:53:11 <mjg59> kanarip: If you're going to accuse us of acting in bad faith before we've done anything, then I don't think your contribution is helpful
18:53:32 <kanarip> mjg59, i have made no such accusation
18:54:03 <mjg59> 18:52 < kanarip> i'll be waiting for the first time this judiciary is applied selectively forceful
18:54:56 <nirik> so, any further amendments to the draft? I think we have driven off a bit...
18:54:59 <kanarip> mjg59, where is that an accusation of you acting in bad faith exactly?
18:55:13 <red_alert> I don't think it can hurt if we're being watched closely for unfair behavior - since we're supposed to be the respected independent mediator for all we have to strive for fairness anyway
18:55:22 <mjg59> kanarip: If we're acting in good faith, there won't be any selective enforcement
18:55:42 <mjg59> Oh, absolutely. We should be strongly criticised for any partisan behaviour.
18:55:56 <mjg59> But implying that we *are* going to engage in partisan behaviour is unreasonable.
18:56:07 <kanarip> mjg59, as i've been suggesting, how selectively enforcement is may not be up to this judiciary
18:56:49 <kanarip> that said, however, i've made my suggestion and you've made your decision
18:57:03 <bpepple> we've only got about 4 minutes left, so let's try to get back on topic.
18:57:04 * nirik notes we can try and improve things... and if this doesn't work or is selective, we can scrap it and try something else yet again.
18:57:11 <kanarip> it seems rather pointless to continue Arguing Over The Internet(TM)
18:57:48 <red_alert> so do we submit the coc and coc-enforcement as-is to the board?
18:57:52 <bpepple> ok, so are there any further amendments to the draft? Or is it ready to go to the board?
18:58:00 <mjg59> I'm ok with this going to the board now
18:58:07 * nirik has nothing. Send and lets see what feedback they have.
18:58:11 * bpepple is fine with it going to the board.
18:58:28 <bpepple> rbergeron. red_alert: ?
18:58:31 <nirik> I'd like though if the Board says "ok this is fine" we then ask for widespread feedback before making anything active.
18:58:34 <red_alert> +1 submit
18:58:39 <rbergeron> i'm happy with it going to the board.
18:58:45 <rbergeron> nirik: =1
18:58:46 <rbergeron> err
18:58:46 <rbergeron> +1
18:58:54 <red_alert> absolutely, nirik
18:58:58 <bpepple> ok, so who wants to forward it to the board?
18:59:03 <bpepple> nirik: agreed.
18:59:12 <bpepple> if no one speaks up, I will. ;)
18:59:49 <red_alert> I think if we ask rdieter he will do it...he promised the board to ask us for a status update anyway ;)
19:00:19 * rdieter perks up.
19:00:57 <bpepple> rdieter: you want to send our coc & enforcement drafts to the board, or you want one of us to do it?
19:01:28 <rdieter> doesn't matter, I can.  though, imo, I don't think it's needed really.  I'd recommend => fab
19:01:54 <rdieter> unless you'd rather get some more private feedback before going public?
19:02:12 <nirik> we could do that too... fine with me.
19:02:32 <bpepple> I'm fine with doing it either way.
19:03:00 <red_alert> I was thinking about getting the board's support first but I'm fine either way
19:04:03 <bpepple> ok, how we send it to the fab list then?
19:04:31 <nirik> sure
19:04:35 <rdieter> depends at what stage we're at.  I mean any coc doesn't necessarily need any blessing, it's really all in your pervue, but if feedback is all you want for refinement, then fab is the way to go
19:04:51 <bpepple> rdieter: yeah, we are looking for feedback.
19:05:01 <rdieter> ok, bigger the better then
19:05:06 <nirik> yeah, I think we want feedback. See if we are going the right direction, missed anything obvious or could change things to work better.
19:05:52 <red_alert> we'll at least need the blessing for the enforcement stuff at some point tho...even some official delegation of the mediation's last stop probably
19:06:02 <bpepple> alright, so who wants to send it?
19:06:27 <bpepple> if no one steps up I will though I might not be able to do it until tomorrow.
19:06:50 <bpepple> going once..
19:06:53 <bpepple> twice...
19:07:01 <bpepple> ok. I'll send it.
19:07:05 <red_alert> it's already tommorow in <4h for me anyway :)
19:07:22 <bpepple> #action bpepple will send the coc & enforcement draft to the fab list for feedback.
19:07:28 <nirik> thanks bpepple
19:07:42 <bpepple> alright, we are already over are time, so we should wrap it up.
19:08:01 <bpepple> anything else we need to discuss? otherwise let's put a fork in this meeting.
19:08:22 <bpepple> #endmeeting