[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bits from the Community Team, October 2020

Dear fellow Developers,

As we try to do quarterly, here is an update about the Community Team

    * As suggested in our last bits mail, we have continued to grow our
      team. Sruthi Chandran and Andrew M A Cater have joined us. Welcome, Friends!

    * We made 3 presentations about the team and our activity:
      Minidebconf Online [1], GUADEC (GNOME annual meeting) online, and a
      BoF at DebConf20 [2].

    * We had a meeting with the new DPL, to coordinate our actions,
      approaches and examine together how to improve our activity.

Now regarding our core activities. Since the last "bits" in February:

    * We were requested to act as moderator of mailing lists several
      times. For teams lists, we tried to give people ways to make easier
      the dialog, stay welcoming for new contributors and not discourage

    * We were also asked for advice about 2 packages, one in terms of
      discussions in the BTS and another in the package's wording.

    * In one case, while the reporter thought it was ignored by the team and they
      did not value his contributions, the situation is a lack of manpower in the
      team, so a more global solution is needed and more difficult to find.
      Other requests (3) had the same kind of issue, where persons in the teams had
      difficulties to talk each other quitely in technical debates, the reporters
      being worried about how their contribution was valuable and compliant with the
      teams process.

    * For users list, we only requested the users to respect the CoC, in
      general messages, which was enough to put up hurt people and make
      calm. We tend to think a discuss is needed about the mailing lists
      moderation, to know who should do it when needed. It may affect
      other communication channels eg. IRC.

    * Two case needed our mediation, between two Debian developers about a
      packaging issue. We tried to make them understand each other, so that they
      can understand better their feedbacks and improve their behaviors.

    * We also had contacts with the debconf team, to ensure the CoC is
      correctly warrantied by public and clear processes for anybody. It
      is all the more needed as the harassment risk seems to increase
      again from some persons, so we need to ensure everybody feels
      protected and confortable.

    * Debconf20 online: the event online was very wonderful and we think attendees
      were pleased with it. The CT was requested 3 explicit actions about the CoC.
      In one case we needed to explain 1) how the first reaction could be legitimate
      from the person; 2) how the form was not. In another case, we did not notice
      any violation of the CoC, but tried to explain how the raised facts should be seen with calm and neutrality, regardless
      the personal backgrouunds. An issue was raised about how the CoC is relevant
      to prevent some potential unacceptable actions. The is thinking about writing
      some opinions about the different articles of the CoC, to explicit how it
      should be understood, from our point of view, and how we do when we are
      requested against it, without needing to amend it itself.

Last, but not least, as always we are looking for more help in our team!
And Steve having put it better that I could, I'll quote him:

"While we strongly believe that making Debian a good and welcoming place
for collaboration is a responsibility of *all* members of our community,
there's also a need for dedicated people to assist when things are not
working so well. If you think you'd like to help, please contact us - we
promise not to bite!

[2] http://ftp.acc.umu.se/pub/debian-meetings/2020/DebConf20/103-meet-the-community-team.webm

For the CT

Jean-Philippe MENGUAL
Debian Developer non uploading
Community team member
Accessibility team member
debian-l10n-french team member
President of Debian France non-profit organization

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: