Summary of the discussion about Marco Rodrigues

[Soren Hansen]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 06:04:43PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>>>> 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.
> I've no objection to any communcation I've made on this topic being
> made public.  It's not all stuff I'm particularly proud of, but it's
> OK with me.

I frankly don't care much. You are the one making statements about
private conversations you've had with unnamed individuals. As I've
already said: I can't and won't comment on things I've not been able to
see. If you want to form an opinion on it, show me. If you don't want to
show me, spare me your interpretations of it.



I usually hate it when people do this to my e-mails, but I'll be moving
stuff a bit around to try to make a bit of sense of what you're saying.

> >Let me start with this: Are we discussing Marco, or general policy?
> Marco.  His case is, IMO, a poor basis for policy because it's been
> allowed to go on far to long without formal action.

Ok. If you are really trying to discuss Marco's case and nothing else,
can you please not say "you" when you really mean "Marco"?  It's
completely impossible to maintain a sensible discussion when you keep
switching back and forth between general views and opinions on the one
side, and Marco's case on the other.

>>>>> 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.

I wrongfully assumed we were discussing general policy here. As we're
dicsussing Marco's case, I'm not sure about the relevance of how much
time the CC has?

>> That statements is so full of assumptions, I find it difficult to
>> figure out where to begin to argue against it.
> OK.  If only 'official communication' need to be listened to, 

I've not said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

> then I expect people will be significantly more likely to invoke the
> official complaint process.

We've already set up a process for reviewing Marco's case on a biweekly
basis. If you find it necessary to voice an opinion in between these
reviews, you are welcome to contact the council.

>>>>> It's still not clear to me that there is a limit to what level of
>>>>> disruptive behavior is OK.
> I've never asked for an objective measure. 

Then how would you expect anyone to convey such a limit to anyone else?

>>> The proposal currently being considered does nothing to prevent
>>> another flood of sync request bugs.  
>> I disagree. While it doesn't put anything technical in place that
>> keeps him from doing so, it has defined the outcome if he continues
>> to do so.
> I don't see how that prevents anything.  

Er... Right. That's what I just said? "It doesn't put anything technical
in place that keeps him from doing so". I'm perfectly aware of this.

> It just promises more discussion if something happens.

No.

>>> 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.
>> Can we please deal with specific cases when they arise?  
> They already have.

Cases after the current spotlight have already arisen? Please step out
of your time machine, Scott. It's not fair to the rest of us.

> He's already been asked to do this once, did it for a few days, and
> then reverted.

Surely you must be about as sick and tired of repeating that, as I am of
repeatedly trying to explain to you the difference between an official
decision from the MC and random gentle nudges from other members of the
community.

Ok, I'll try one last time.

Yes, the MC has now told Marco the same thing others have told him
numerous times before. The difference is that the MC is an official body
in the Ubuntu community. Yes, that is an *actual* difference.

Yes, it would have been nice if this wasn't necessary.

> It would have been nice if the MC had dealt with this as it arose.

Yes, it would.

>>> You've gotten input from more than just me that indicated his work
>>> is problematic.
>> Have I said it hasn't been problematic?
> It sounds to me like you're saying it's not sufficiently problematic
> to ask him to stop and I disagree.

Scott.. Don't put words in my mouth.

>>>> 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.

Ok, cool. Stop by our office any time to discuss Marco. 

>> I find it sad that you base your general perception on worst case
>> scenarios.  Do you actually call the police every time you have even
>> a minor disagreement with anyone at all? Should I be expecting a
>> knock on my door soon? :)
> No.  Actually I've never done so.

I apologise for thinking we were discussing generalities.

> In this particular case, Marco has a demonstrated history of either
> ignoring sound advice from community members or only following it for
> a short time, so no assumptions are required.  If your interested in
> examples, they can be found in the archive of #ubuntu-motu.

I'm aware.

> If it turns out that the advice sticks when it comes from an official
> source, then my take would be that all problems with him in the future
> should be directed to the MC.  All of us who have tried to engage him
> on a friendly neighbor basis have failed to get much done.

Yes, this is quite unfortunate.
 
>>> The community would be a much nicer place if people would listen to
>>> the concerns of their neighbor's and not require official action.
>> Agreed. Well said. I'm not sure where you're going with that
>> statement, though.
> Even if Marco listens to the MC, I don't think his continued
> involvement in the community will be benificial for the community.

You are, of course, entitled to that opinion.

>>>>> 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?
>>> 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.

The thing is that you are not the MC, so you cannot do those things, so
when you say that *you* (not the general "you", but ScottK "you") will
not repeat the mistake of engaging the MC, what will *you* do instead?

>> You've made numerous requests. Some even in private (you said so
>> yourself).  I've clearly gotten lost in them somewhere.  If I search
>> in my head for something that matches "ScottK" and "request", the
>> first hit I get is a request to the MC about making at statement that
>> Marco is not suitable for MOTU status... Am I to understand that when
>> you in the future doubt that you'll repeat the mistake of engaging
>> the MC, what you'll do instead is engage the MC? It's quite possible
>> that I'm missing something here. Please fill me in.

/me looks around for the filling in and does not see it. <shrug>

> My request to the MC was, I thought, a specific set of requests.  It
> appears that nothing is going to be done.  I realize you believe you
> are doing something.  I don't find it amounts to anything.

If that's the case I shall discuss this no further. It's pointless.

> P.S.  Much of this predates your MC membership, so please don't view
> this as a personal issue with you.  It's not at all.  

I don't. Feel free to interpret anything I say as personally as you
like, though.

-- 
Soren Hansen
Ubuntu Server Team
http://www.ubuntu.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/attachments/20071222/ebd96fb1/attachment-0001.pgp