I think the CoCC is doing a phenomenal job so far. The number of argumentative emails I received has been reduced tremendously. The CoCC needs to balance allowing voices to be heard and not allowing disruptive arguments and naturally the line each of us draws on what is and is not appropriate is different. In addition, they are a newly formed group and you can't expect a problem this complex to be resolved in 2 seconds. They still need to set-up the groundwork (rules, etc) in order to do their jobs effectively. So although proposals aren't solving the problem right away, they are laying the groundwork which should have been done years ago so that they can solve problems like this faster before they become big issues. Moreover, remember that the committee is a volunteer group who is spending their free time to help the community. We can't expect them to drop everything they are doing (work, family, etc.) just to spend full-time on this issue. So things will naturally go a little slower.
Thank you to the CoCC for all the hard work you're doing. It does not go unnoticed. In terms of the policy, it looks great! I think Kwankyu makes a good point on something to consider in regards to what happens when a PR is created by person A who has blocked person B. I think Kwankyu's suggestion of case by case is a good one and seems to be the way the policy text is leaning anyway considering that the policy mentions that either a block is valid or there needs to be a resolution between the two parties until which time person A will not be allowed to merge PRs. -Aram On Sat, 7 Sept 2024 at 04:11, 'Doris Behrendt' via sage-devel < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Dear list, > > boaaahhh come on guys! I again could't read all the past mails and cannot > comment objectively, but subjectively this feels like Kindergarten. Perhaps > Dima and Matthias (and the CoC group as well) should read >>Asterix and the > big fight<<? > > scnr > > ... some months ago I suggested the >>key players<< meeting in person and > a professional mediation, but the CoC did not plan anything in that > direction, right? > > SageMath is much too important to have quarrels like those destroy the > project ... so CoC please do some real management. Writing proposals and > E-Mails will not solve the problem, I believe. > > Doris > > > On 7. Sep 2024, at 09:36, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 6 September 2024 22:29:35 BST, Matthias Koeppe < > matthiaskoe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Friday, September 6, 2024 at 1:23:21 PM UTC-7 jplab wrote: > >> > >> We would like to solicit suggestions from the community for a new > section > >> of the Sage Code of Conduct > >> <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/develop/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md> > >> addressing blocking. The following is a draft: > >> > >> Blocking another SageMath developer on GitHub can be a valid response > to > >> extreme misconduct, aimed at reducing interactions. However, unless the > >> misconduct results in the blocked person being excluded from the > SageMath > >> project, such blocks should be temporary and last only until the > conflict > >> is resolved. The SageMath Code of Conduct Committee should work with > both > >> parties to lift the block. If the blocked person does not cooperate, > the > >> committee may sanction them. If the blocker does not cooperate, the > >> committee may decide that proper discussion on their Pull Requests and > >> Issues is not feasible, and request that the release manager not merge > any > >> of their Pull Requests until the block is lifted. > >> > >> We know that this issue is sensitive for several Sage developers [...] > >> > >> > >> A public discussion of this is meaningless as long as the public is > unaware > >> of the extent of dysfunction of the CoCC, which refuses to take the > >> necessary steps even in the face of persistent abuse. > >> > > > > We have a proposal to discuss. Functioning of a committee is a rather > different topic. > > > > As a target of blocking on GitHub, which I think is aimed at pushing me > out of the project, > > I very much welcome any way out of this limbo - even if it means that > the blocker is prevented from contributing to the project as long as the > block is at place. > > > > Dima > > > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "sage-devel" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/400569A6-180C-42BC-8B86-8F849A09315D%40gmail.com > . > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/42D87810-BBB2-4B99-87AF-182BF3BAFC96%40me.com > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAKQMtiq1t_HRP0AuJ%2BCATrO6mp2_-pD2Q5Ksi0v4bF8ZTk9vUw%40mail.gmail.com.
