Summary of the discussion about Marco Rodrigues

[Scott Kitterman]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:05:52 +0100 Soren Hansen <soren at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 06:04:43PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I find the response to my request to be excessively legalistic.
>
>I know I said I didn't want to discuss the matter any further, but I
>couldn't get that statement out of my head last night.
>
>We clearly have wildly different opinions of what is an appropriate way
>to run a community. If I understand you correctly, you want us to have
>kicked Marco out a long time ago (I'm not sure how you envisioned the
>process to do so, though), while /I/ think that if we're going to kick
>someone out, we'd better be absolutely sure that every part of the
>process is well documented, and that the proper official approach has
>been taken.  If it turns out that Marco gets kicked out in the end, I
>want to be completely sure that noone can accuse us of being rash, or
>for basing this all on personal matters. This goes both for Marco, for
>the press, or whoever might feel like digging a bit into this story.

I haven't actually asked for him to be completely kicked out, just to have his accesses 
significantly limited.  The restrictions are directly related to things 
he's done in the past more than once that were problematic.

>Taking the right approach does not imply being slow. We, however, had
>never had to deal with anything like this before, and then things simply
>take more time. If a similar situation arises at some point, we are now
>in a much better position to deal with it quickly and appropriately.
>
I hope that's the case.

Personally, I think he's already engaged in disruptive behavior 
significantly beyond what we ought to have to tolerate.  I think that the 
decision to give more chances validates that behavior as bad, but not so 
bad as to cause one to be ejected.  It sets a precedent for what's sort of 
OK.

I want the disruptive behavior to end.  Ideally it would have ended by 
Marco learning to make a positive contribution.

As I see it now, the precendent that is established is that up and until 
some official process by the MC is enacted, one can essentially do anything 
to disrupt the community and additional chances will be given.

You can't ensure everyone sees the process as fair no matter what you do.  
Even in the case of Debian Games, which seemed to me straightforward, there 
were complaints he was treated unfairly.

There is a balance between creating and inclusive environment and an 
environment in which work can get done.  I don't feel like that later 
perspective has been well served in this case.

Scott K