On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2014-11-18 11:36 UTC-07:00, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com>: >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Anne Schilling <a...@math.ucdavis.edu> >> wrote: >>> On 11/18/14 7:55 AM, Harald Schilly wrote: >>>> >>>> On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:26:18 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote: >>>> >>>> What if instead of a "code of conduct" there was a "community >>>> expectations" SHORT document that just say what we expect? >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm a little bit late to this thread, but I've read all the mails. This >>>> "expectations" document sounds interesting to me, whereas I'm a bit >>>> hesitant to this "code of conduct" thing. In my eyes, it is >>>> stating a lot of obvious things, and doesn't solve immediate problems. I >>>> agree that it could be abused in some way, just because it exists and >>>> hence it is a leverage point. e.g. phrases like "poor >>>> behavior" are a bit hollow for me. (*) >>> >>> Saying that discussions that get out of hand can be relegated to >>> sage-flame is, I think, important. >>> For example, I did not know that we could do that until very recently. >>> Stating explicitly how this can >>> be done might be good. >>> >>>> We should not forget, that most of us here (as mathematicians & >>>> researchers in general) are trained to be (a) very picky and (b) >>>> long-term persistent. Those ingredients do not help if a discussion >>>> derails into lengthy substitution-arguments to just make a point in a >>>> time-consuming thread. What would actually help in such situations is to >>>> step back and look at the bigger picture. Maybe there >>>> should be an intervention team of "senior" community people to sort this >>>> out: e.g. just posting "DRAMA MODE" as a signal for everyone to stop it? >>>> But who are those and how do they gain authority? >>> >>> One problem with this is that the intervention team might not be reading >>> all threads. >>> So having a way to say where there is a problem might still be useful. >>> I agree deciding who the intervention team is is an important question. >>> Probably William >>> would be a good choice. >> >> Here is I think a concrete, apolitical proposal. >> >> Given the potentially political nature of such a choice, one >> possibility is to do something apolitical, and select based on >> ownership. In particular, based on lines of code contributed to Sage, >> which is an (imperfect!) but non-politicial measure of how much >> ownership people have in Sage (with legal value, since people do not >> contribute their copyright). By this definition: >> >> >> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/graphs/contributors?from=2006-02-05&to=2014-11-18&type=a >> >> the top 12 all time list of contributors to Sage, in order, are: >> >> - William Stein >> [SNIP] >> >> We could: >> >> 1. Create a private mailing list called sage-abuse with these people >> as members. >> >> 2. Make a clear statement on the sagemath.org website, etc., that if >> people think a thread should be on sage-flame, send a message to the >> sage-abuse list. >> >> 3. The sage-abuse list members will have a quick discussion and if >> what to do isn't clear, they will vote (which means a quick on-list >> vote that must be completed within one day). If a majority votes to >> move the discussion should move to sage-flame, they ensure it moves. >> >> For now, the sage-abuse group would have exactly one duty, which is to >> ensure that discussions get moved to sage-flame when requested. >> That's it. We would give this a try for 6 months, and only then >> revisit whether the group should expand its duties or be dissolved. > > Having a committee in charge of the repression looks more than > suspicious to me. Why would you exclude people from those important > decision ? Why do not make the discussion public ? > Isn't sage-devel > good enough for that ?
Maybe sage-devel would be good enough. We could use our existing process, which is that you start a new thread with a title like VOTE: to move thread <link to thread> to sage-flame [ ] Yes [ ] No Anybody on sage-devel can vote (or argue) for 24 hours, we count the votes, and if there is a simple majority for moving the thread to sage-flame, it moves. That's it. > Moreover, it would be nice to point precisely > the thread/tickets where problems occurred. > On the other hand, for what William called a "non-political choice" of > the committee, if you look at the period 2012-2014 which reflects more > who is *involved* in Sage, the top list is not at all the same. I hope > that you agree that Sage "belongs" to who use it and not to who create > it. <ianal> Legally the copyright of Sage belongs to those who created Sage, since we've never done copyright assignments to a foundation (or something similar). The GPLv3 copyright grants a specific list of rights to those who use and redistribute Sage. </ianal> -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- 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 post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
