02:51 zmike: a660 ci dead?
03:01 zmike: guess so
08:10 Mary: Hi, is it known that https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/repositories.html now 404? It used to work last month
08:17 whot: Mary: looks like this commit https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/maintainer-tools/-/commit/a82cce8c4e2c50f93f07940552932b6c5a662d5a
08:17 Mary: I see I shouldn't trust my browser history, thank you
12:59 MrCooper: is it really possible to get banned from FDO due to alleged CoC violations without getting any details of the alleged violations, let alone a chance to make at least a statement in response to the accusations before the decision is made?
13:02 MrCooper: rather shocking and scary if so
13:03 daniels: MrCooper: no, it is not
13:04 MrCooper: didn't that just happen though?
13:04 daniels: no, it did not
21:45 kode54: MrCooper: if it's who I'm thinking of, the full scope of the violations were discussed privately with them, and they chose to double down and go public
21:46 kode54: unless there's another violator making a pissant of themselves more recently
21:47 kode54: if I gather information properly, rules violations are usually discussed in private with the individual so there may be remediation before a total ban
21:58 karolherbst: I suggest to everybody to not discuss this any further unless you are directly involved and already participate in the discussions involved. No point in guessing who and why or whatever happened. If people decide to make a public statement on it, it will happen sooner or later or not at all. But rest assured, that those decisions are never made on a whim or just because people feel like it in a moment.
22:01 pinchartl: karolherbst: I understand the sensitivity of the topic, and the issues with publishing information. the flip side is that the lack of publicity hinders faith in the fairness of the process (hence why court proceedings are by default public). I don't think there's a good answer when it comes to enforcing CoCs though, making everything public by default isn't feasible
22:03 karolherbst: yeah.. there is a lot of things to consider and it will vary case by case. And in any case, people are always free to complain to the board and let them judge if it was the right decision or not.
22:04 kode54: ah, I'll drop it, nothing I want to get too involved in
22:05 pinchartl: are there statistics published by the board, like the number of complains and the number of bans ?
22:05 karolherbst: the coc makes report at each XDC
22:05 emersion: there is a transparency report each year yeah
22:05 karolherbst: or at least it happened a few times at xdc
22:05 pinchartl: I assume that the majority of cases are resolved in a constructive manner. seeing high-level stats that confirm this could increase confidence in the process
22:05 karolherbst: but yeah, that's a requirement
22:06 pinchartl: ok
22:06 pinchartl: where are the reports published?
22:07 karolherbst: I actually don't know, but maybe Lyude does? If not, we might want to collect them into a central place. But I think one can look up the talks and check out the slides
22:07 emersion: https://indico.freedesktop.org/event/4/contributions/185/attachments/154/222/xorg-state-2023.pdf
22:08 emersion: slide 7
22:08 karolherbst: yeah.. generally it's low stats like this
22:08 karolherbst: I think
22:11 karolherbst: technically the requirement I think is to report it to the board, so maybe they have the info somewhere
22:11 pinchartl: thanks
22:13 karolherbst: but anyway, I think nobody here is against more transparency as long as it remains reasonable, so we are totally open for those discussions if the community feels the need to change some of the process. It's just, that given how small our community is/was, it's hard to find enough volunteer to join the team in order to actually come up with proper processes and the likes 🙃