MC Call Minutes, Mar 19th

Scott Kitterman ubuntu at kitterman.com
Sat Mar 22 05:01:51 GMT 2008


On Saturday 22 March 2008 00:05:17 Richard A. Johnson wrote:
> On Friday 21 March 2008, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> [...]
>
> | So we are powerless.  All that can be done is say pretty please don't
> | annoy us.
>
> In a way, yes. I think one of the recommendations of community members is
> to be respectful and act like an adult. It is kind of impossible to really
> stop someone on the Internet (legally of course).
>
> [...]
>
> | As far as I know, he was asked to desist.  He didn't.  Nothing further
> | was done (merging the LP accounts is status keeping).
>
> There was actually quite a bit done. There was a lot of communication back
> and forth. You can blame me for not making this stuff public. The reason
> being, going out on a public mailing list and airing "dirty laundry" for
> one is embarrassing to the person(s) in question, and it isn't the right
> thing to do. It was me who said we can do the merge, file the report, and
> then just put that in the minutes and anyone who is interested will read
> it. I just didn't want the issues aired publicly, and if anyone thinks that
> was wrong of me, I am sorry, but I would do it a million more times. One
> thing I have always learned is when you have an issue with someone, you
> don't make your issues known publicly, you pull that person aside and you
> fix it. There are actually quite a few members in the community that I am
> grateful for having done this when dealing with me in the past. If I screw
> up, I don't want people attacking me or airing my laundry to the general
> masses. So it was this attitude that made me push really hard for the MC to
> keep some of the processes hush hush. I know this is an open and
> transparent community, but it shouldn't be open and transparent to the
> point that someone feels threatened almost.
>
> | So there really is no consequence.  The fact that he may have chosen to
> | reduce his "contribution" or hide it better doesn't change the fact that
> | nothing more than a request was ever done.
>
> What was the original request? I apologize for not knowing it as I am sure
> I have probably already seen it.
>
> | As far as coming up with a general policy, what's been done?  It's been
> | clear since this case came up that something is needed.  So far I've
> | heard no request for input from the community, seen no proposals, and the
> | MC call minutes (which I'm really glad are being done) don't show a lot
> | of evidence of progress.
>
> A general policy still needs to be drafted. It is really hard creating a
> policy on something you really can't control. Just like the Code of
> Conduct, we can only hope people respect it. If they don't there isn't
> anything we can, unless they are an Ubuntu member or such and those titles
> can be removed. With the previous incident, there was no title to remove
> nor a way to banish the person from the community.
>
> | If MOTU doesn't have sufficient control of it's environment to
> | effectively protect it's members from outside abuse, then that's
> | something we need to work on.
>
> I agree, but what can we do really? All we can do is ask for the person to
> be respectful. If they don't, then all we can do is choose to not work with
> them, throw in an /ignore if need be, and continue on with our work. It
> really does suck sometimes and I am with you on that, it is just tough
> trying to enforce the near impossible.
>
> | Was it asked to have his account suspended?  Who said no?  What can the
> | MOTU community do to solve this problem?  Do I need to write a getting
> | people banned from Launchpad spec and take it to UDS?
>
> Yes it was asked, but what good would it have done? This person simply
> recreated a new account and went back to work.
>
> As for the "getting people banned from LP spec," I would say give it a
> shot. That was one of our first questions and we were told LP doesn't have
> that possibility at this time. It would be easy to ban an IP, but then
> there is Tor, and other anonymizers out there that would allow the person
> to create yet another account.
>
> I wish there was a way to make this all better, but I just don't see how to
> at this time.

So the MC asked and was told no?  I agree there's no bulletproof solution, but 
that doesn't mean that cancelling accounts has no value.  We don't give up on 
spam filters because they miss some stuff.

It sounds like we're in basic agreement that nothing was accomplished.

I decline to accept that the only option we have is to ask nicely and bury our 
head in the sand.

Scott K



More information about the Motu-council mailing list