I hope everyone who needs to be involved to fix this sees how Striker
Leggette's latest post shows just how realistic my post is about this
situation. The man quoted in that post was involved in this thread calling
it a witch hunt. It is truly sad, this situation. Unbelievable.
On 09/15/2016 11:39 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> In any case, what are people really wanting? What is the solution that
> is needed?
> Paid for moderators vs volunteers?
> Fedora users are picked as a jury to be a moderator for a day?
> Better guidance on moderation?
> More people volunteering to be moderators?
> A truth and reconciliation group?
I'm happy to be a volunteer moderator if more are needed. But I think
guidance is a good idea as well. And probably a documented process for
removing moderators/resolving moderation incidents.
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
Il 10/set/2016 03:33 PM, "Máirín Duffy" <fedora(a)linuxgrrl.com> ha scritto:
> Are the #fedora OPs supposed to have jurisdiction over any #fedora-*
channels? Because that really doesn't jibe with how we work, yet gnokii has
gotten banned from (amongst others) #fedora-meeting-* because of a #fedora
policy that I don't think should apply to other Fedora channels. The ban
isn't because of any misbehavior - it's because he doesn't have access to
an IRC proxy so he has frequent joins/parts because the internet in his
country is really unreliable.
> Certainly if, as a project we're interested in increasing our diversity,
we should be more understanding of those folks who stay up until 3 AM their
time and deal with awful internet service to contribute to Fedora, and not
ban them from being able to get their jobs done! To ban someone based on
the fact they come from a third world country is problematic on multiple
levels, I hope you'd agree.
> The thing is, gnokii is a senior, extremely productive member of the
design team, and I needed him in a meeting that was held in a
#fedora-meeting channel recently and after struggling to get him in there I
came to find he had been banned by a #fedora OP. To me, this is completely
> Here's a proposal:
> #fedora-* channels affiliated with a team should be opped by the admins
of the corresponding FAS groups in charge of those teams. Folks who are not
active members of those teams should *not* have OP status in those
channels. I kind of thought this was how things operated, but apparently
not based on how gnokii has been banned. Certainly, if such a ban were
instituted in #fedora-design we'd have no designers - #fedora-design is the
very first IRC experience most of the designers we recruit have ever had -
they don't know anything about nickserv, ops, join/part messages,
proxys/bouncers, etc. And they shouldn't have to!
> #fedora-meeting-* and other project-wide channels (eg the flock channels)
should be OPed by commops. There is no reason #fedora ops should have de
facto ops in those channels unless they are engaged in the comm ops team,
and sorry to say, I haven't seen any involved in comm ops (please correct
me if I'm wrong.)
> #fedora - i have no idea what to do about, but let's contain the problem
and not let it spread to other parts of the project.
> Some suggestions for #fedora:
> - My suggestion here would be that if any OP has had multiple complaints
filed against them in the ticket system - there's probably been many other
CoC violations the victims didn't bother to file - and they really should
retire and recover from their burnout before trying again.
> - Op status is *not* a status symbol, it's a responsibility, and it seems
like a lot of people wield IRC ops not due to any actual personal
responsibility but rather because they were around when the Fedora project
was in its early days and have held on to it since then - not really a good
reason to keep them. It should be more like a relay race baton, not a
certificate you hang on your wall forever.
> - A suggestion would be to offer ops to top-rated helpers on ask.fpo and
make them rotating positions as any other parts of the project (fesco,
council, famsco, etc.) are. This would also hopefully help combat burnout
by giving overwhelmed ops a e asy way to gracefully bow out without drama
or feeling like a quitter or leaving the other opers high and dry without a
replacement - just don't run for re-election and let someone else step up.
> We do get very positive feedback about users' interactions on ask.fpo and
use it as the main support channel we point people to on our websites. The
system has built in moderation that allows to keep things more civil than
> council-discuss mailing list
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
> The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and
> open source software and content as a collaborative community.
Totally agree with you Máirín.
@kevin: as I said already to Ben, people who get annoyed by bouncing in and
out can silent these messages (as I do) and meeting logs don't care about
system messages either. So I didn't understand this unfriendly behaviour.
Máirín's proposal also seems good to me, we should at least try this way
instead of silent the user (in this specific case be) and pass over it
again. I never saw the necessity to OP fedora contributor channels,
sometimes discussions go personal, but most contributors know each other,
so there is always a line nobody has passed so far.
I don't have a specific idea for the #fedora channel, but people who join
there often use IRC the first time.
Instead of banning people for bouncing in and out, OPs should care about
unpolite users or offensive trolls. We need to ban them, not contributors
who have problems with their Internet connection.
Would it be fair to request that the default action when hitting reply
(not reply all) in an email client for this list be a private email
rather than emailing the list? IIRC this is a per-list mailman setting.
Since sensitive topics can come up on this list from time to time and it
can be productive to have off-list conversations about them, I think
this would *ahem* avoid accidental public postings.
Thanks for consideration,
Hi everyone! Last week I canceled because I hadn't planned an agenda in
advance. Let's see what we have on our plate right now... what items
should be on Monday's agenda?
Fedora Project Leader
I am outraged by this as well. gnokii is an extremely productive senior member of the design team, and he continues to contribute and mentor other designers effectively even with his challenging internet situation and timezone differences.
There recently was a meeting in one of the #fedora-meeting channels that I *needed* him to attend because I wanted his design advice, and I came to find out then that he could not because of this ban, which seems to be based on a personal pet peeve and not any intentional bad behavior on gnokii's part at all.
The feifdom of #fedora is one thing, because it at least does not impede on contributors' basic workflows and getting things done. But to ban a productive, active contribuor from *all* meeting channels (where contributors get work done) because - essentially - they live in a third world country is problematic on a number of levels. This would be akin to a Red Hat facilities person banning me from entering any Red Hat conference rooms in my office because they were annoyed that I wore noisy high heel shoes and they dont like the click clack sound.
The productive contributor base channels on freenode should *not* be opped in the same manner as #fedora; I believe commops would be a better fit for the governance of general contributor channels like the #fedora-meeting channels because they are a contributor focused organization and managing contributors is not the same as managing end users. And individual team channels like #fedora-design should be opped by those team leaders and not the irc sig.
If we had the same rules that governed #fedora for #fedora-design, we'd have no contributors... many of the designers we recruit have their very first encounter with IRC through our team, and they don't know anything about join/part messages or configuring proxies (not an option for everyone! Even if we offered such a service it's a challenge to configure as my interns learned this summer) and they honestly shouldn't have to worry about these things at all.
When Hubs is deployed, we're going to have integrated chat based on fedora's IRC channels. As a result, a lot more non technical users without any IRC experience are going to be using our channels. We are trying to shield them from a lot of this drama via the UX design. The thing is, we *want* these people to join us. We *need* their perspective and their talents and their skills. I get the feeling this isn't a shared goal. Until we solve that fundamental disconnect, and work together to welcome new people into our community, this problem is going to persist. And when Hubs is deployed, it may get worst depending on how we choose to move forward here.
And, btw, we're never going to get new mods to run a channel when any potential new contributors are chased away by rudeness and any potential exisiting contributors have also been mistreated and warn others away from getting involved. So the problem *cannot* be solved with more manpower. I recognize there have been many heroic and thankless efforts to clean it up including introducing the ticket system but after 6+ years of that, if someone like Bee can't get some friendly technical help and has an almost identical experience to my last one in 2010 (right down to the ticket filing and meeting) it's clearly not working.
IRC op privs should *not* be awarded like a badge of honor. Telling someone to back off but letting them keep the privileges is wrong. Ops are *not* a status symbol they are a responsibility and if you can't handle it you shouldn't have it.
Banning gnokii from the meeting channels? Irresponsible.
------- Original Message ----------
But being banned from the meeting channel or as FAmSCo
member from ambassadors is an outrage.