Request for MOTU Council to consider Marco Rodrigues (Kmos) not potentially suitable for MOTUL

[Scott Kitterman]

On Saturday 08 December 2007 18:12, Michael Bienia wrote:
> On 2007-12-08 15:02:52 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Saturday 08 December 2007 13:08, Michael Bienia wrote:
>
> [ First this is my *own* opinion and should not be mixed up with any
> 'official' MC statement. ]
...
> > > I haven't yet also come to a decision about the proposed solution.
> > > On the one hand it's a very extreme solution to disable/limit someones
> > > LP account as this cuts him off of all Ubuntu-related contributions and
> > > activities.
> >
> > This is true, but some of his most difficult actions to deal with have
> > been caused by filing masses of mostly bad sync bugs, even after having
> > been warned.  I don't think anything less will be effective.
> >
> > > I'd prefer to use such measures as a last resort and have tried several
> > > other solutions before I agree to such a solution.
> >
> > We've done that already.
>
> My impression is that Kmos still hasn't realized what's at stake for
> him.

I suspect you are correct, but this isn't so much about his expectations as 
his inability to consitently accept guidance.  I don't think it matters if he 
expects it or not as when he's been told to do something he often agrees and 
then does the exact opposite a short while later.

It's not like this is a lifetime ban.  I carefully included a path to 
rehabilitation.  If I felt his actions were malicious, I wouldn't have done 
that.

> > > In particular as a first step this is IMHO a very drastic solution.
> > > Additionally there was no 'official' warning from the MC towards him in
> > > the past (at least I don't know of any).
> >
> > This is not, IMO, a first step, but a last one.  I don't think you want
> > the MC to become a formal disciplinary body.  I would also encourage you
> > to consider the likely consequence of such a decision.  If it becomes
> > clear that abusive behavior will only be stopped after the MC issues an
> > official warning and then the problem recurrs, people (I would expect)
> > will ask for such warnings earlier and more frequently.
>
> It's about balance again. I don't want that bad behaviour only stops
> because the MC has intervened but I also don't want that a MOTU
> contributor/hopeful fears about his LP account because he has done some
> errors and a MOTU is angry at him (unless it happens to often). There
> has to be some middle ground.

That's why I suggested talking to other MOTUs.  If it were only me, then I 
would suggest you not approve my request.  This is something there needs to 
be consensus around.  We can't have a situation where one person getting 
annoyed gets someone kicked out.

> We need to work out what works best, till now it wasn't needed
> (luckily).

Agreed.

> > > I also don't want to leave the impression that we have lost control
> > > about the situation (I hope this is not the case) and trying now to
> > > force an improvment.
> >
> > That's my impression.  Personally, I think that the behavior in this case
> > has been sufficiently egregious that someone in leadership should have
> > taken up this problem and tried to solve it.
>
> Yes, I agree that the MC should have reacted earlier.

So please don't delay a final resolution and make the situation worse.

> > > On the other hand I understand that this is not a normal situation and
> > > I also understand the feelings of some MOTUs towards Kmos and their
> > > need for a solution. I could also understand if some MOTUs shorten
> > > their MOTU activities (or step down from them) if the MC doesn't come
> > > to a suitable solution for them soon though I would regret it.
> >
> > I've already done so.  I believe others have too, but will let them speak
> > for themselves.
>
> I hope you will get more active again when the MC has successfully
> managed to improve the atmosphere around MOTU.

IMO, Kmos and the reaction to him is the primary factor in the deteriorated 
environment.  I believe that if he is removed and it is demonstrated that 
troublesome individuals can get removed that will help.  Currently public 
shaming is the only tool it appears we have available to try and correct 
problematic behavior.

> > > But this doesn't make the decision easier (only harder). I also don't
> > > want that it looks like the MC was forced towards this solution for the
> > > greater benefit of all MOTUs as this would lessen the position of the
> > > MC (which isn't currently the best either). The MC should stay
> > > independent from compulsions from MOTUs.
> >
> > Personally, I'm not trying to make any compulsions.  It is a fact that
> > I've substantially reduced my involvement in Ubuntu development for Hardy
> > as compared to Gutsy.  This is not the only reason, but it's one of the
> > big ones.
>
> It was not against you, but about the current atmosphere in MOTU in
> general which isn't the best at the moment. I don't want to sacrifice
> parts of the idea behind MOTU to improve the current situation.

Right.  I strongly believe that the current atmosphere is the result of a 
belief that vigilante justice is the only kind that exists in MOTU.

> > You (the MC) have to decide what kind of community you want.  If Kmos is
> > what you want, then I'll have to decide how much involvement I want in
> > that kind of community.
>
> I want a MC that comes to a decision because the MC believes that this
> solution is the best one for a problem and for MOTU and not because it
> wants to please some old-established MOTUs to keep them. Note that the
> opinions of the MC and of the MOTU body has not to be always different
> (it should even be in the same direction else the MC wouldn't be a good
> representation of the MOTU body).

Agreed.  I'm not trying to sway anyone with threats about my future 
participations.  I'm just trying to make clear the magnitude of the current 
problem.

> To make myself clear: I don't want to imply that the MC is making bad
> decisions or that your proposal is wrong. I'm absolutely happy with the
> current MC and want to keep it like that (but a more active and less
> passive as in the past).

I am in favor of more proactive leadership.  This is good to hear.

> [ I hope I found the right words for my feelings. It's not easy to find
> the right words for a non-native speaker where a wrong word or term may
> create the wrong impression. ]

I believe you've done fine.

> > I would encourage you (and the other MC members) to seek wider input from
> > other MOTUs.  This decision shouldn't be made just on your perspectives
> > or mine, but based on the consensus of ubuntu-developers.  I will note
> > that the first large scale problems in Gutsy started shortly after DIF. 
> > DIF for Hardy is in 5 days.
>
> I would be happy to see comments from other MOTUs about Scott's
> proposal.

That would be good, but I also think you should be proactive about seeking 
input.  

Scott K