Gerrit as a shared community space

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Gerrit as a shared community space

Brion Vibber-4
Recent threads have demonstrated there seems to be some disconnect about
what is expected about maintainership and ownership of repositories.

This has spilled over into talk about the code of conduct, IMHO
specifically because some people are trying to avoid being bound by it or
protesting its existence by looking for loopholes to avoid it. Which I
think is a shame, but I don't expect much constructive talk to come out of
that thread.

I think we should though clarify that code repositories on gerrit and
diffusion are not owned by any one person, but are technical community
spaces held in common for the benefit of the Wikimedia movement. And yes,
that means sometimes your favorite project will get documentation commits
you personally didn't like.

If this has been unclear, it should be made clear. If that means some
people host their self-maintained code outside of Wikimedia technical
spaces, then that is their decision and I respect it.

If some kind of official kerfluffle is needed to decide this, let's talk
about how to do that.

-- brion
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Alex Monk
This is outrageous. Not only are you blatantly misrepresenting what various
people are saying in the other thread and their intentions, you are now
suggesting that repository owners do not in fact get to decide what goes in
their repository and what does not, as if this has been the case all along.
It is incredibly ironic how against the spirit of the CoC this all is.

On 9 June 2018 at 16:58, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Recent threads have demonstrated there seems to be some disconnect about
> what is expected about maintainership and ownership of repositories.
>
> This has spilled over into talk about the code of conduct, IMHO
> specifically because some people are trying to avoid being bound by it or
> protesting its existence by looking for loopholes to avoid it. Which I
> think is a shame, but I don't expect much constructive talk to come out of
> that thread.
>
> I think we should though clarify that code repositories on gerrit and
> diffusion are not owned by any one person, but are technical community
> spaces held in common for the benefit of the Wikimedia movement. And yes,
> that means sometimes your favorite project will get documentation commits
> you personally didn't like.
>
> If this has been unclear, it should be made clear. If that means some
> people host their self-maintained code outside of Wikimedia technical
> spaces, then that is their decision and I respect it.
>
> If some kind of official kerfluffle is needed to decide this, let's talk
> about how to do that.
>
> -- brion
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Brion Vibber-4
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:00 AM Alex Monk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is outrageous. Not only are you blatantly misrepresenting what various
> people are saying in the other thread and their intentions,


Perhaps. I've tried to go by the plain readings of position statements and
I could have made a mistake?

you are now
> suggesting that repository owners do not in fact get to decide what goes in
> their repository and what does not, as if this has been the case all along.


Yes I'm definitely explicitly saying that. Same applies to pages on
Wikipedia: you don't get to own them and veto others' clarifications. And
sometimes an admit makes an edit stick that you don't like.


> It is incredibly ironic how against the spirit of the CoC this all is.


Can you clarify?

-- brion



>
> On 9 June 2018 at 16:58, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Recent threads have demonstrated there seems to be some disconnect about
> > what is expected about maintainership and ownership of repositories.
> >
> > This has spilled over into talk about the code of conduct, IMHO
> > specifically because some people are trying to avoid being bound by it or
> > protesting its existence by looking for loopholes to avoid it. Which I
> > think is a shame, but I don't expect much constructive talk to come out
> of
> > that thread.
> >
> > I think we should though clarify that code repositories on gerrit and
> > diffusion are not owned by any one person, but are technical community
> > spaces held in common for the benefit of the Wikimedia movement. And yes,
> > that means sometimes your favorite project will get documentation commits
> > you personally didn't like.
> >
> > If this has been unclear, it should be made clear. If that means some
> > people host their self-maintained code outside of Wikimedia technical
> > spaces, then that is their decision and I respect it.
> >
> > If some kind of official kerfluffle is needed to decide this, let's talk
> > about how to do that.
> >
> > -- brion
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Alex Monk
On 9 June 2018 at 18:14, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:00 AM Alex Monk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > This is outrageous. Not only are you blatantly misrepresenting what
> various
> > people are saying in the other thread and their intentions,
>
>
> Perhaps. I've tried to go by the plain readings of position statements and
> I could have made a mistake?
>

 For example where you said "IMHO specifically because some people are
trying to avoid being bound by it or protesting its existence by looking
for loopholes to avoid it", which is not at all what that thread is about
as has been made very clear in that thread.

On 9 June 2018 at 18:14, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:

> you are now
> > suggesting that repository owners do not in fact get to decide what goes
> in
> > their repository and what does not, as if this has been the case all
> along.
>
>
> Yes I'm definitely explicitly saying that. Same applies to pages on
> Wikipedia: you don't get to own them and veto others' clarifications. And
> sometimes an admit makes an edit stick that you don't like.

This is a bad analogy. Repository owners *are* essentially the admins, and
in this case get content control. The people involving themselves are more
akin to global users like stewards trying to override local admin actions,
and in this case they're not really supposed to have such control of
content. Like with on-wiki stuff, it's not really so bad when a global user
comes and does uncontroversial cleanup, but global permissions are not for
the purpose of involving oneself in local controversy.

On 9 June 2018 at 18:14, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > It is incredibly ironic how against the spirit of the CoC this all is.
>

>
> Can you clarify?
>

Making Wikimedia technical spaces less welcoming to outsiders.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Brion Vibber-4
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:21 AM Alex Monk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 9 June 2018 at 18:14, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:00 AM Alex Monk <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > This is outrageous. Not only are you blatantly misrepresenting what
> > various
> > > people are saying in the other thread and their intentions,
> >
> >
> > Perhaps. I've tried to go by the plain readings of position statements
> and
> > I could have made a mistake?
> >
>
>  For example where you said "IMHO specifically because some people are
> trying to avoid being bound by it or protesting its existence by looking
> for loopholes to avoid it", which is not at all what that thread is about
> as has been made very clear in that thread.


I disagree that it has been made clear. I found the opposite to be true in
my experience of reading that thread -- for instance the ability to exclude
the code of conduct from some interactions between developers and users was
cited as a desired feature, and thus a reason to want to avoid advertising
the code of conduct in the repo.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the idea of wanting to avoid the code of
conduct as a proxy for not liking it?



>
> On 9 June 2018 at 18:14, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > you are now
> > > suggesting that repository owners do not in fact get to decide what
> goes
> > in
> > > their repository and what does not, as if this has been the case all
> > along.
> >
> >
> > Yes I'm definitely explicitly saying that. Same applies to pages on
> > Wikipedia: you don't get to own them and veto others' clarifications. And
> > sometimes an admit makes an edit stick that you don't like.
>
> This is a bad analogy. Repository owners *are* essentially the admins, and
> in this case get content control. The people involving themselves are more
> akin to global users like stewards trying to override local admin actions,
> and in this case they're not really supposed to have such control of
> content. Like with on-wiki stuff, it's not really so bad when a global user
> comes and does uncontroversial cleanup, but global permissions are not for
> the purpose of involving oneself in local controversy.


I'll let that one stand. Sounds like a good analogy except that this is
exactly the sort of thing a steward might have to intervene for.


>
> On 9 June 2018 at 18:14, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > > It is incredibly ironic how against the spirit of the CoC this all is.
> >
>
> >
> > Can you clarify?
> >
>
> Making Wikimedia technical spaces less welcoming to outsiders.


Not just outsiders generally, but outsiders who have not had a fair shake
in the past because the place has been unwelcoming or full of toxic
interactions.

Reducing toxic interactions is an important part of that, and sometimes
that means telling people who cause toxic interactions that they are not
welcome because we would rather have other people who are less toxic and
can bring different perspectives and representation.

-- brion


> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Isarra Yos
On 09/06/18 17:30, Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:21 AM Alex Monk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>   For example where you said "IMHO specifically because some people are
>> trying to avoid being bound by it or protesting its existence by looking
>> for loopholes to avoid it", which is not at all what that thread is about
>> as has been made very clear in that thread.
>
> I disagree that it has been made clear. I found the opposite to be true in
> my experience of reading that thread -- for instance the ability to exclude
> the code of conduct from some interactions between developers and users was
> cited as a desired feature, and thus a reason to want to avoid advertising
> the code of conduct in the repo.
>
> Perhaps I'm reading too much into the idea of wanting to avoid the code of
> conduct as a proxy for not liking it?

I am genuinely at a loss how this could possibly be made any clearer.
People are already explicitly stating this. Yaron in particular stated
this from the start.

>>
>> ...
>> This is a bad analogy. Repository owners *are* essentially the admins, and
>> in this case get content control. The people involving themselves are more
>> akin to global users like stewards trying to override local admin actions,
>> and in this case they're not really supposed to have such control of
>> content. Like with on-wiki stuff, it's not really so bad when a global user
>> comes and does uncontroversial cleanup, but global permissions are not for
>> the purpose of involving oneself in local controversy.
>
> I'll let that one stand. Sounds like a good analogy except that this is
> exactly the sort of thing a steward might have to intervene for.

That is not what stewards do. They are not superadmins, but backups.
Support. As people with more general +2 normally do in specific
repositories.

> Not just outsiders generally, but outsiders who have not had a fair shake
> in the past because the place has been unwelcoming or full of toxic
> interactions.
>
> Reducing toxic interactions is an important part of that, and sometimes
> that means telling people who cause toxic interactions that they are not
> welcome because we would rather have other people who are less toxic and
> can bring different perspectives and representation.
>
> -- brion

Perhaps I was too subtle the last time I hinted at this: this is toxic.
What you and others are doing misrepresenting what others are saying,
the general heavy-handedness, the implications that anyone against a
specific aspect of implementation is against the very concept of good
conduct...

Please stop.

-I

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Brion Vibber-4
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:55 AM Isarra Yos <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Perhaps I was too subtle the last time I hinted at this: this is toxic.
> What you and others are doing misrepresenting what others are saying,
> the general heavy-handedness, the implications that anyone against a
> specific aspect of implementation is against the very concept of good
> conduct...
>
> Please stop.
>

Fair enough, I'll leave the thread and ponder for a bit.

Be good to yourselves, all, and don't fall into anger. I'm not immune
either.

-- brion
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Kunal Mehta
In reply to this post by Brion Vibber-4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi,

CoC.md business aside, I agree with the main thing you've said.
Specifically:

On 06/09/2018 08:58 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> I think we should though clarify that code repositories on gerrit
> and diffusion are not owned by any one person, but are technical
> community spaces held in common for the benefit of the Wikimedia
> movement. And yes, that means sometimes your favorite project will
> get documentation commits you personally didn't like.

100% agreed. We[1] do a lot of maintenance work across mediawiki/*
repositories, whether it be rote cleanup, CI fixes, fixing deprecated
things, etc. I'd like to think that 98% of the things we do in this
area are uncontroversial, and to be honest, boring.

I think it's important that we retain this shared ownership model.

[1] Where "we" are people who are not the main maintainer nor the
original author of the repository.

- -- Legoktm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=ACa6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Alex Monk
And that's fine and good and should continue, but doesn't mean it's a
shared ownership model. As I was saying before with the analogy, global
users make uncontroversial edits using their rights but aren't supposed to
use their global rights to involve themselves in controversies.

On 9 June 2018 at 19:06, Kunal Mehta <[hidden email]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi,
>
> CoC.md business aside, I agree with the main thing you've said.
> Specifically:
>
> On 06/09/2018 08:58 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> > I think we should though clarify that code repositories on gerrit
> > and diffusion are not owned by any one person, but are technical
> > community spaces held in common for the benefit of the Wikimedia
> > movement. And yes, that means sometimes your favorite project will
> > get documentation commits you personally didn't like.
>
> 100% agreed. We[1] do a lot of maintenance work across mediawiki/*
> repositories, whether it be rote cleanup, CI fixes, fixing deprecated
> things, etc. I'd like to think that 98% of the things we do in this
> area are uncontroversial, and to be honest, boring.
>
> I think it's important that we retain this shared ownership model.
>
> [1] Where "we" are people who are not the main maintainer nor the
> original author of the repository.
>
> - -- Legoktm
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE+h6fmkHn9DUCyl1jUvyOe+23/KIFAlscFz0ACgkQUvyOe+23
> /KKkPw//aaqo7s4zAlrNVUYbv/q3+uu1811/8OfeKm2AliM/1vfsNQOMJNAaWWzS
> cHxSfjH95BsCpdrJUZQHh7LviBqbaB6Soa73p8k86JEykyaNIN93fvzOx5U+hFLG
> vNHthcxoXB9BcDzUK7MJv+sR2CraIlFWu1Wm3RBxdQTu/Qf1V4+we6aPbcCMn28p
> akStbaM+7k3YSnp+ZiC0vnfUnWzkFL7XjN0fzW2NCyOwwxDk1Lma5mzY33gzjAWw
> x6W1heilHW52wH/FcyWLIjbA4lQIL9u35WJKmMkgaCuSxjL+nw5+LNf0WICB7Qud
> B6YdC7GndTpm5sBQ7804s5O+Se/ltWbhJGeoyP164MsHocG+jCmrEscCLeK+p/w1
> ryl104EYrSmYqtvH8A6q1aa154TIjVWSHusQrjkEXBCzXopdljMnTwn2Y+UcJDTp
> fz7cDoTKMhmghSISyzLn7rsgG7/a6Ma7aZ72IFWIXC7epnvo6eMFTV34ACPy8afE
> azTC0Es5XCGDd4xxa/ItPhUF8OpMehwJ7/3Vu7SSsCKgXrUzBPoEGs2OE+4kC2pG
> AyGqilT8hRlXKKHElIjvxR/CmxXk3l4mwg3DL6gOIAcVKRhyQjPlsUqL3LUQL+H7
> dgbr0mOq/8BpBTjTxo7VOuXOyYwn9XiKfvBQAwIFWQa4sgkzK/I=
> =ACa6
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Brion Vibber-4
In reply to this post by Brion Vibber-4
I'd just like to apologize for dragging the other thread into this one and
being overly personal and failing to assume good faith.

That was a failing on my part, and not good practice.

Please if you respond further to this thread, treat only the narrow issue
of ownership / maintainership expectations and where/how we should be more
clear on it.

Further discussion on people's motives about the code of conduct will
likely not be productive for anyone on this thread.

My apologies to all; I should do better. You all deserve better.

-- brion
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Brian Wolff
Taking a step back here...

I agree with you in principle...but

Shared spaces imply that occasionally disputes are going to arise as to
what belongs in a repo. If we dont have a fair method of resolving such
disputes (/my way or the highway/ is not fair), then this model is not
going to work.

--
Brian

On Saturday, June 9, 2018, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'd just like to apologize for dragging the other thread into this one and
> being overly personal and failing to assume good faith.
>
> That was a failing on my part, and not good practice.
>
> Please if you respond further to this thread, treat only the narrow issue
> of ownership / maintainership expectations and where/how we should be more
> clear on it.
>
> Further discussion on people's motives about the code of conduct will
> likely not be productive for anyone on this thread.
>
> My apologies to all; I should do better. You all deserve better.
>
> -- brion
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

nischay nahata
I think there's a lot of misunderstanding on this whole thing.

The issue pointed out was that the CoC makes a false feeling of protection
by being in extensions that are developed outside WMF's technical spaces.
That is if I had an issue with an extension's maintainer WMF would refuse
to help as it wasn't in WMF's technical spaces as per the CoC.

This has probably been interpreted as maintainers are against CoC. However,
if the CoC.md file were to claim that the authors support a specific Code
of Conduct it would probably be fine.

Also I would like to note that I have immense respect and thanks for the
WMF devs for their hard work on maintenance on all of these extensions.


Regards,
Nischay Nahata


On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 11:58 PM Brian Wolff <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Taking a step back here...
>
> I agree with you in principle...but
>
> Shared spaces imply that occasionally disputes are going to arise as to
> what belongs in a repo. If we dont have a fair method of resolving such
> disputes (/my way or the highway/ is not fair), then this model is not
> going to work.
>
> --
> Brian
>
> On Saturday, June 9, 2018, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I'd just like to apologize for dragging the other thread into this one
> and
> > being overly personal and failing to assume good faith.
> >
> > That was a failing on my part, and not good practice.
> >
> > Please if you respond further to this thread, treat only the narrow issue
> > of ownership / maintainership expectations and where/how we should be
> more
> > clear on it.
> >
> > Further discussion on people's motives about the code of conduct will
> > likely not be productive for anyone on this thread.
> >
> > My apologies to all; I should do better. You all deserve better.
> >
> > -- brion
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Amir Ladsgroup
In reply to this post by Brian Wolff
Here's my 2 cents.

License is one example for me, if you are using gerrit and all of WMF
infrastructure (from jenkins to translatewiki integration) you have to
publish your code with at least one OSI-approved license. You can't say
"All rights reserved" and still use all the benefits that came with donor's
money [1] and this has to be explicit by adding LICENSE or COPYING file (or
adding a note on top of the files, any sort of notion, etc.)

The same goes with CoC, you can't use the benefits while avoiding to be
hold responsible for your acts, being harsh towards others, etc. Some might
disagree but I don't think this is up for discussion. The point of making
this explicit by adding CoC.md in the files to make sure people see it,
newcomers feel welcome, etc. might be up for discussion. Even though, while
there is no clear body of decision making, people on all sides have strong
feelings about it, and there is no group responsible for mediation, etc.
This is not going anywhere. Three groups that can decide about it are,
"RelEng" who are responsible for maintaining gerrit, "Technical engagement
team", or "TechCom". One useful discussion that can happen here is that who
can decide about this matter and leave the decision to them. Maybe a voting
in mediawiki is also an option.

One note particularly about this incident, I personally would be happy if
Yaron thought the wording is wrong, put the file back with a better
wording, like "gerrit part of development of this extension is covered by
the WM CoC". It would make everyone happy. And also, it would send the
proper signal to people who want to contribute to know where they should
feel welcome and where they can't have that assumption. For me personally
and after this stuff, I wouldn't touch any code Yaron is developing outside
of gerrit with one-yard stick but I'm fine with making patches in gerrit in
his extensions because I know it's covered by CoC. But what happened? He
reverted my commit with the commit message of "No Thanks", like I offered
him a dessert :) And in here, called my comments (and my colleagues)
"unbelievable" I don't see that productive and constructive.

[1]:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#7._Licensing_of_Content

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 8:28 PM Brian Wolff <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Taking a step back here...
>
> I agree with you in principle...but
>
> Shared spaces imply that occasionally disputes are going to arise as to
> what belongs in a repo. If we dont have a fair method of resolving such
> disputes (/my way or the highway/ is not fair), then this model is not
> going to work.
>
> --
> Brian
>
> On Saturday, June 9, 2018, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I'd just like to apologize for dragging the other thread into this one
> and
> > being overly personal and failing to assume good faith.
> >
> > That was a failing on my part, and not good practice.
> >
> > Please if you respond further to this thread, treat only the narrow issue
> > of ownership / maintainership expectations and where/how we should be
> more
> > clear on it.
> >
> > Further discussion on people's motives about the code of conduct will
> > likely not be productive for anyone on this thread.
> >
> > My apologies to all; I should do better. You all deserve better.
> >
> > -- brion
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Brion Vibber-4
I'll only state the obvious: it's not a community space if the community
feels forced to walk out of it.

Federico

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Fæ
+1

The CoC was supposed to encourage collegiate behavior, not to be an excuse
for those with big white hats to /force/ others to "respect my authoritah",
to quote South Park.

Folks, get a grip. Seeing bad faith accusations and character attacks
against long term contributors, is not why any of us want to remain here.

Fae


On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, 13:33 Federico Leva (Nemo), <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'll only state the obvious: it's not a community space if the community
> feels forced to walk out of it.
>
> Federico
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Yaron Koren-2
In reply to this post by Brion Vibber-4
Hi,

Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgroup at gmail.com> wrote:

> One note particularly about this incident, I personally would be happy if
> Yaron thought the wording is wrong, put the file back with a better
> wording, like "gerrit part of development of this extension is covered by
> the WM CoC".

Maybe I'll do that, now that I know it's an option.

> For me personally
> and after this stuff, I wouldn't touch any code Yaron is developing
outside
> of gerrit with one-yard stick but I'm fine with making patches in gerrit
in
> his extensions because I know it's covered by CoC.

This looks to me like a violation of the Code of Conduct. I don't want to
cause more drama in this discussion, especially since it seems like a sort
of consensus has formed and we can all move on, but I do find it disturbing
that a member of the Code of Conduct Committee, who is tasked with
enforcing the rules, is himself willing to engage in personal attacks.

-Yaron
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

David Barratt
Do we have a Terms of Service for Gerrit (or any other technical spaces)?

If not, perhaps we should add one? If so, perhaps we should add the code of
conduct to the terms of using the service?

Examples:
https://www.drupal.org/git-repository-usage-policy
https://developer.wordpress.org/plugins/wordpress-org/detailed-plugin-guidelines/

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:35 PM Yaron Koren <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgroup at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One note particularly about this incident, I personally would be happy if
> > Yaron thought the wording is wrong, put the file back with a better
> > wording, like "gerrit part of development of this extension is covered by
> > the WM CoC".
>
> Maybe I'll do that, now that I know it's an option.
>
> > For me personally
> > and after this stuff, I wouldn't touch any code Yaron is developing
> outside
> > of gerrit with one-yard stick but I'm fine with making patches in gerrit
> in
> > his extensions because I know it's covered by CoC.
>
> This looks to me like a violation of the Code of Conduct. I don't want to
> cause more drama in this discussion, especially since it seems like a sort
> of consensus has formed and we can all move on, but I do find it disturbing
> that a member of the Code of Conduct Committee, who is tasked with
> enforcing the rules, is himself willing to engage in personal attacks.
>
> -Yaron
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Moriel Schottlender-2
In reply to this post by Yaron Koren-2
Yaron,

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 8:35 PM Yaron Koren <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This looks to me like a violation of the Code of Conduct. I don't want to
> cause more drama in this discussion, especially since it seems like a sort
> of consensus has formed and we can all move on, but I do find it disturbing
> that a member of the Code of Conduct Committee, who is tasked with
> enforcing the rules, is himself willing to engage in personal attacks.
>

This isn't a personal attack, it's a consequence to your earlier email.

You stated yourself, that one of the reasons you don't think a COC.md file
should exist in your repository is because not all interactions are covered
by it. While that might be true technically-speaking, it does make a
statement to potential contributors about what they might expect in terms
of feeling safe and secure with a CoC in place.

For those of us who "bad interaction online" are a norm rather than an edge
case, a statement that the CoC is not fully covering a space means we don't
go to that space if we can help it.

Saying that one does not intend on touching a space where the maintainer
clearly stated the CoC is only partially in effect is not a personal attack
-- it's a consequence of what you said.
A consequence that is also shared by others who may feel less comfortable
speaking up on public threads, but would avoid going into such spaces all
the same. Not because of who you are personally, but because of what your
statement about how your space is governed means.

Whatever other claims and discussion is going on in this and the other
thread, let's not try to make it sound like there's a personal attack going
on here.

Moriel



>
> -Yaron
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Yaron Koren-2
In reply to this post by Brion Vibber-4
Hi,

Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> This isn't a personal attack, it's a consequence to your earlier email.
>
> You stated yourself, that one of the reasons you don't think a COC.md file
>  should exist in your repository is because not all interactions are
covered
>  by it. While that might be true technically-speaking, it does make a
>  statement to potential contributors about what they might expect in terms
>  of feeling safe and secure with a CoC in place.
>
>  For those of us who "bad interaction online" are a norm rather than an
edge
>  case, a statement that the CoC is not fully covering a space means we
don't
>  go to that space if we can help it.
>
>  Saying that one does not intend on touching a space where the maintainer
>  clearly stated the CoC is only partially in effect is not a personal
attack
>  -- it's a consequence of what you said.
>  A consequence that is also shared by others who may feel less comfortable
>  speaking up on public threads, but would avoid going into such spaces all
>  the same. Not because of who you are personally, but because of what your
>  statement about how your space is governed means.
>
>  Whatever other claims and discussion is going on in this and the other
>  thread, let's not try to make it sound like there's a personal attack
going
>  on here.

No, I still think it's a personal attack. I think we've already established
that the CoC does not cover all interactions, and that the CoC.md file is
thus giving false information. Some people have stated that clearly, some
have grudgingly admitted it, but no one has really argued against it. Even
you note that it's "technically" true, whatever exactly that means.

And of course, this file was put in place by a few developers - it wasn't
an opt-in choice. (It's still not 100% clear that it's even an "opt-out"
choice, though at this point it seems to be.)

Given those two things, the presence of a CoC.md file in an extension
directory tells a potential contributor nothing - nothing about additional
security they're getting, and nothing really about the extension's
developers. Actually, it's worse than nothing, because it gives potential
contributors false comfort as far as the protections they'll have. If, as
you say, some people face a real danger of harassment everywhere not
covered by a code of conduct, then it's all the more reason to either
remove that file, or reword it, everywhere - so people know what they're
actually getting into.

So, why should Amir want to avoid dealing with my code specifically? Is it
because he would have fewer protections? Clearly, no. It must be something
about me personally that would make him treat my code differently from
everyone else's.

-Yaron
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gerrit as a shared community space

Moriel Schottlender-2
This isn't about not wanting that file in (which is a discussion that
should happen) -- this is about what you, yourself, said, about how
interactions are working in your repo.
That's where people decide whether they want to work in your repo or not.
They hear about the expectations in that space, consider whether those
expectations are right for them, and decide to join or not. That's a
judgment on the rules you decided to enforce and specifically stated you
care about -- it's not about you, your personality, or your personal
behavior.

Quite frankly, I don't blame people who regularly experience harassment
online to avoid spaces where the code of conduct is consciously only
enforced in parts of the space.
I, too, don't feel comfortable in joining that space, even for considering
potential interactions that I might encounter, and knowing that these
interactions, depending where they happen, may not be dealt with to my
personal ideal of what such space should be.

That's a fair conclusion about what we want to do with our time, Yair, and
has nothing to do with who you are as a person.

You stated that as far as you're concerned, there are interactions you
purposefully don't see as being governed by the CoC.
Some developers decide that they purposefully, in their repos, assume it
governs all interactions related to to work on the repo, and some,
apparently, do not.

People hear that you consider some spaces related to work on your repo as
intentionally not included in the CoC.
They make a valid decision that this type of space is not for them.

That's not a personal attack. that's a valid decision about where one wants
to spend their time given the governing rules of the space.

Moriel


On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:24 AM Yaron Koren <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > This isn't a personal attack, it's a consequence to your earlier email.
> >
> > You stated yourself, that one of the reasons you don't think a COC.md
> file
> >  should exist in your repository is because not all interactions are
> covered
> >  by it. While that might be true technically-speaking, it does make a
> >  statement to potential contributors about what they might expect in
> terms
> >  of feeling safe and secure with a CoC in place.
> >
> >  For those of us who "bad interaction online" are a norm rather than an
> edge
> >  case, a statement that the CoC is not fully covering a space means we
> don't
> >  go to that space if we can help it.
> >
> >  Saying that one does not intend on touching a space where the maintainer
> >  clearly stated the CoC is only partially in effect is not a personal
> attack
> >  -- it's a consequence of what you said.
> >  A consequence that is also shared by others who may feel less
> comfortable
> >  speaking up on public threads, but would avoid going into such spaces
> all
> >  the same. Not because of who you are personally, but because of what
> your
> >  statement about how your space is governed means.
> >
> >  Whatever other claims and discussion is going on in this and the other
> >  thread, let's not try to make it sound like there's a personal attack
> going
> >  on here.
>
> No, I still think it's a personal attack. I think we've already established
> that the CoC does not cover all interactions, and that the CoC.md file is
> thus giving false information. Some people have stated that clearly, some
> have grudgingly admitted it, but no one has really argued against it. Even
> you note that it's "technically" true, whatever exactly that means.
>
> And of course, this file was put in place by a few developers - it wasn't
> an opt-in choice. (It's still not 100% clear that it's even an "opt-out"
> choice, though at this point it seems to be.)
>
> Given those two things, the presence of a CoC.md file in an extension
> directory tells a potential contributor nothing - nothing about additional
> security they're getting, and nothing really about the extension's
> developers. Actually, it's worse than nothing, because it gives potential
> contributors false comfort as far as the protections they'll have. If, as
> you say, some people face a real danger of harassment everywhere not
> covered by a code of conduct, then it's all the more reason to either
> remove that file, or reword it, everywhere - so people know what they're
> actually getting into.
>
> So, why should Amir want to avoid dealing with my code specifically? Is it
> because he would have fewer protections? Clearly, no. It must be something
> about me personally that would make him treat my code differently from
> everyone else's.
>
> -Yaron
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
12