Summary of the discussion about Marco Rodrigues

[Scott Kitterman]

On Friday 21 December 2007 04:56, Soren Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 07:46:25PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > >Agreed. The positive outcome of this entire situation is that we've
> > >gotten a much clearer image of how to deal with various situations in
> > >the future, and this most certainly should help the MC establish
> > >itself as a respected authority in our development community.
> >
> > Personally I see it rather the opposite.  It seems to me that private
> > complaints to council members (not you) get nothing but platitudes and
> > requests to give it more time.
>
> As is the nature of private e-mails I cannot and hence will not comment
> on any alleged replies to them.

Sure.  I just want mention it to give a complete picture to why my frustration 
level is so high.

> > Public complaints get nothing that hasn't been tried before.
>
> So if I - as a random community member - told you that you should think
> more closely before doing X, that would weigh the same in your mind you
> as if the CC had said the same to you?

Right, but if you have a large number of people telling you X and don't 
listen, but the CC tells you and you listen, that just indicates that the CC 
will have to do a lot of explaining they don't have time for.

> > It's still not clear to me that there is a limit to what level of
> > disruptive behavior is OK.
>
> If you can define the acceptable level of disruptive behaviour in an
> objectively measurable, I'd be more than happy to see it.

Of course not.  The proposal currently being considered does nothing to 
prevent another flood of sync request bugs.  Given the current spotlight, I 
expect it's unlikely we'll get one now, but once the spotlight is off, I 
expect the old ways to resurface.  You've gotten input from more than just me 
that indicated his work is problematic.  The best you've gotten is that it 
isn't all bad (which I agree with).

> > All this business about working through someone has been tried before
> > and he didn't stick with it.  I don't see the value in trying the same
> > thing again.
>
> Two scenarios: a) Your neighbour tells you to turn down the stereo, and
> b) your landlord shows up with a notice of eviction if you don't turn
> down your stereo. The matter is the same: Someone thinks you're too
> loud. The message is the same: Please stop it. Yet, I see a major
> difference, and I'd hope you do, too.

I see the difference.  As a neighbor, I'd learn the lesson that only eviction 
threats work and so I'd be complaining to the landlord constantly so they 
could deal with it.  The community would be a much nicer place if people 
would listen to the concerns of their neighbor's and not require official 
action.

> > From my perspective spending the time to engage the MC on this issue
> > appears to have been wasted.  I doubt I'll repeat the mistake.
>
> That's up to you, of course, but I'm not sure I understand what you'd do
> instead?

I thought I provided a clear proposal on what I'd do instead.  I didn't submit 
that because I thought less should be done.  I spent a lot of time 
considering both the negative aspects of his behavior in the past and how to 
limit them as well as giving him a chance to redeem himself in the future.

If you don't understand what I'd do, I'm wondering how closely you actually 
read my request?  What I would do is what I asked you to do.

Scott K