Took place on 2019-11-15 16:00

Hello, it's time for the room meeting. Because nobody took the hammer away from me last time, I'll be your chairman for today.
I intend to go over each item in the agenda, but I'd like to defer the first two bullet points to the end, since they're both from 2018 and current events are more interesting.
So our first topic is: "How effective are these meetings at enacting real change? If they are not effective, why not? What can be done to improve this?"
Here are my thoughts on the matter. For the most part, the RO team is putting a good-faith effort into working on the issues raised during meetings. There are a couple reasons that this doesn't always bear fruit.
One big one is that resolutions aren't concretely actionable. We might resolve something like "let's create a side channel for anonymous feedback". Then a discussion ensues about design choices like "should it be anonymous? Should we be able to send messages to specific ROs?" Important questions, but in the time allotted in the meeting we don't manage to nail down the requirements.
so then nothing happens for... how long? A year?
I believe that as long it's not too time consuming - such things can be brought up generally in chat and be discussed (as long as we're not neglecting time spent on helping people formulate questions or get answers) and that there's always (I believe it's still available) - anyone can send an email to thus that it reaches all RO's?
@Aran-Fey Right. That brings up another reason. Resolutions that require development are tackled on a voluntary basis. We've all got day jobs, so if nobody can prioritize putting together a prototype, it's hard to twist the screws on anybody to make it happen.
I haven't got a day job, I am pulling all-nighters, which is even worse
I didn't even realize there was an actual list of specific issues to be worked on (never having attended a room meeting before). The only issue I can think of recently is "be nicer to green beans". It would help if this list were more prominent in some way.
join the club @Antti :p
I do think it's a problem that these sorts of things fall through the crack for months at a time. It's not right, and we can do better.
@PaulMcG it's been pinned for ages at the top of the room's star board - I'm not sure how more prominent it could be made other than that :(
At the very least I'd like to see more transparency on the level of "still haven't worked on this yet"
(we can get back to that at the end if we have time, because I think I'm involved)
I didn't equate a meeting agenda with a to-do list.
It might be good to have a list of "resolutions requiring action", separate from the agenda points for each meeting and/or the retrospective that gets made for each meeting after the fact
And I should explore the wiki contents further
I think what I'll try after the meeting is setting up a kanban-type thing, either as a wiki page on SOPython itself, or on SOPython's github page
sounds good, thanks, Kevin
Worst-case scenario we have a lot of items that sit in the "not assigned yet" category indefinitely, but that's still better visibility than "maybe someone's working on it???"
labels for "will strive to do" and "not sure - needs more input" definitely won't go amiss
I endorse Jon's suggestion of bringing resolutions up in the chat. That's how we got the ball rolling for this very meeting, so it's at least sometimes effective ;-)
If you ping me specifically about it, I'll try my very best to give a useful reply.
+1 for github's kanban, specific topics can also be discussed and clarified on their tickets there
Ok, that's two concrete resolutions made for this issue: make a kanbanny thing, and respond constructively to status update request pings. Let's go to the next agenda item.
the main network may have forgotten its community, but I strongly believe this room hasn't... it might be a bit more 6-8 than it should be (we've had some many ideas/implementations/blah blah over the 7 years this room has been functional), but yes, let's work out better ways of doing so and anonymously if necessary
Agenda item the nexth: "Change room description to remove cruft. Recommendation: “Room rules <link>\n Formatting guide <link>”"
Potential ad-on: link to the kanban, as soon as it's made
Yeah, that's my intention
I think that's implied
I'm a bit late, but I want to point out how incredibly disrespectful it is to forbid us from discussing RO behavior here in the room until this feedback thingy is implemented, and then months later there's still nothing except some brainstorming about how to work on it more efficiently.
I expect the idea here is that new users are more likely to follow the links if they're basically the only thing in the description. I'm not opposed to the idea, although as always I'm pessimistic about our ability to actually influence the behaviors of new users
neophytes gonna neophyte after all.
I don't think that stripping the title would help link discoverability. A huge problem is that the title is virtually non-existent on mobile, which is a systemic problem
@Kevin yup... let's do that... "salad", while I don't think harmful is a years old thingy now... let's keep the lingo out of the room title
it's had its run. remove the noise.
I like that the title suggests that we don't take ourselves too seriously, but I don't insist if you think it should go. Consider it -0
And a link to the wiki too? I didn't even realize there was one
@AndrasDeak Hmm. Are the links not visible on mobile? Would making the the title shorter make them visible?
No, if you look for a room in chat you can only find its description page if you enter the chatroom and then look at the menu for it
nobody ever does that, I bet
so what shows on desktop is: "The productive programming cabbage. Guide to formatting code in chat:…. Room rules:"
same with the starboard; it's largely hidden on mobile
once you click the info page link in the menu you see the desktop version of the info page...
If you see the room list: ""
one can see there: The productive programming cabbage. Guide to formatting …
@PaulMcG Both the existing links go to pages where the wiki is visible in the navigation bar, but I acknowledge that it's not directly accessible from chat.
the thing is it is the room description, not a link placeholder unfortunately :(
I am not sure the "Guide to formatting" for example or "rules" would help the people to find out if they want to join the room or not
We of advanced years still think the desktop is the main interface, but most of the new people will be on mobile, so making an effort to be mobile-friendly is worth doing
(my own point is that mobile is fundamentally broken)
"Welcome to Python: etiquette (<link>)" or something
mobile is broken.
I think people do a good job of deciding whether to join the room already, regardless of what the description says. "Do I want to talk about Python? (Y/N)"
it lacks so many features it is painful to use.
@JonClements Don't mention "Python" because it's directly above
okay then... I'd vote for removing the first sentence?
(and the starboard link is the desktop starboard page which is also broken)
@JonClements yes.
and swapping the last two around
@JonClements works for me, although I anticipate zero improvement (and maybe more confusion with cabbage)
rules first, formatting assistance later
I agree that rules-then-formatting is a logical order
I added formatting on a whim, and I figured the last item is more likely to be read
(so feel free to juggle)
"Guide to formatting code in chat" -> "Formatting guide" or "Code formatting tips"
neither of your suggestions work for me
and while at it, on mobile, the links are not shortened, we should have a better = shorter url for that formatting link
"formatting guide" is unclear, the real issue is code formatting. and "code formatting tips" sounds like something optional
errrrr.... can we keep on track of what as a room we can do rather than limitations or constraints of the site please?
We can't put hotlinks in the description, but we could perhaps use a third party link shortener
(in before sopython link shortening service)
"Code formatting syntax"
Ok, resolution: strip the description down to just links, with rules first, then formatting, and perhaps also a link to the wiki. Urls will be shortened with whatever reputable link shortener I can find.
<blink>Read this to format code</blink>
"Format your chat posts like a boss", "Rock star code formatting in chat"
@Kevin is short enough, if we can deploy. A redirect is sufficient.
next(iter_agenda). "Spoiler feature is not working - remove the link from the room rules page until it is fixed."
The spoiler userscript still works, right?
Yeah. spoiler decoding works, but not encoding from the spoiler page.
perhaps we could amend that line with ("currently only available via a [userscript]")
My personal jimmies are mildly rustled that the spoiler encoder has been on the fritz, but my efforts to locate the cause haven't borne fruit, so, such is the way of things
Just remove it. I will make a PR to fix it if you want.
or anyone else that knows js / web dev
I think removing it is an acceptable stopgap until such time as functionality is restored
it's kind of bugged and useless anyway, the userscript is better
it's not like newbies want to post spoilers all the time
even when it kinda worked there was text you could enter that made the site return 500.
Are you saying you broke it?
If troubleshooting drags on I'll put a link to the userscript in
I see on the wiki that there is a Userscripts page. But not being JS-adept, I'm not sure how these userscripts are used. Could that be added to that page? Then I would be happy to use the spolier userscript
there was a PR open since february but nobody cares
@PaulMcG Ok, fine, I'll write up a tiny userscipt guide, or find a nice existing one
@PaulMcG yeah, sure. There is probably an SO-related link due to, we can look for one
we've now reached nearly 1hr
Resolution: remove link to spoiler page in room rules
Resolution: add an explanation of userscripts to the userscript page.
what's left
Four new items, then I want to circle back to 2018's old items, which I hope will be very fast
Agenda item: "should we have/elect someone to be in charge of these meetings?"
Well, we have one, he's me. But I wasn't elected.
Nah, you're doing a good job
I think you should consider electing RO's though, rather than just choosing your buddies
I elect Kevin
@wim I think "how should we do RO succession?" is an important issue, but somewhat separate from this item, so I'd like to talk about it after we cover existing agenda items
I think it couldn't hurt to have an informal election for chairmanship... It would be easy to have a section in the room meeting wiki page for nominations/votes. It's on the honor system not to remove other people's ballots though ;-)
I have to go in about 10 mins though, just fyi. got other meeting at $EMPLOYER.
In response to the agenda item, I'm fine with self-nomination by Kevin or whomever. Kevin, in the absence of a process, you will probably be assumed to take the mantle on this. If you don't want to, I think just a post the day or two before the meeting would let people know that someone else is expected to step up.
I'm in favor of something a little more formal then "Kevin just kind of decides to do it" since there tends to be a little bit of ambiguity about who should be preparing their soapbox
An election seems like a lot of process when we just need someone to manage the meeting to the agenda
Resolution: add a section to future room meetings for proposing the chairman
And self-proposing is allowed
(also called volunteering)
and declining the role should also be allowed
RO's can figure that out between themselves
Next: "do we want to have a free gitlab instance where regulars can migrate/preserve good question + answer discussions that happen in chat, which can be given a named-and-searchable link on sopython?"
It seems out-of-order to elect ROs without discussing RO behavior in general and what needs to be improved.
you guys are all sensible and mature, just pick someone.
RO election is a different matter than chairman election, so let's talk about that in a bit
@Kevin sounds like overkill to me
No, overkill. And gitlab sucks.
I don't know what a gitlab instance is, but I'd be happy to have a better system for marking conversations as interesting than the rather dismal room bookmark system
I think it means a self-hosted private gitlab service
@smci there's a huge difference between an internal discussion among RO's and who is going to chair a meeting, vs, who's a mod on the site and blah blah blah
good question + answers belong on main
@wim agree, if not too broad
agree - post on main as a self-answered question
We already have a common questions page, which sort of satisfies the need of having good question/answers. Although that's more targeted towards linking to good SO posts rather than good chat convos.
or if someone cherishes these code snippets (I personally never look them up) one can create a private repo somewhere and collect links to the discussions there
But, as has been said, maybe that's how it ought to be, since that's what the main site is for
forward please.
the common questions page could do with a link to that excellent dupe finder stack app
and maybe a json of the content to dump into it
Resolution: we won't create a gitlab instance ourselves, but if any of you regular users wants to make your own, we're powerless to stop you
Forward: proposal: ‘define a consensus list of “the Python SO room’s priority list of unimplemented SO change requests, from 2018 and 2019” [… ] maybe one good approach to take is “here’s list of stuff that is near-universally agreed to be needed across all SE sites, not just SO or code-related sites” […] Then when SO doesn’t do diddly, we can at least say “We requested you guys to implement these for several years running” ’
@JonClements (I misunderstood, due to the comment about "RO succession". Ok that was only about chair for this mtg. I'm late to the mtg, but are we discussing RO behavior in the remaining 12 min? (If not, then we seem to be missing the elephant))
(Oops, I skipped the pandas one, we'll do that next)
(where's "RO behaviour" on the agenda? anyway, we'll get there oh, the old ones!)
I will continue my pessimistic streak by saying that SO will do diddly regardless of our priorities
yes that pointless
they don't even listen to suggestions on meta with 500 upvotes
I don't think they'll care at all, so it's a waste of our time and our hopes, alas
Next item please
(Incidentally I'm willing to continue the meeting for as long as we have items to cover. I can't speak for the other ROs' schedules, alas)
but if no one ever requests anything then outsiders will think we're happy :)
I think we have four votes for "nay", so resolution: no formal priority list. But if someone wants to start one on, we're powerless to stop you
I'd like to circle back to the 2018 Q4 items that we didn't get around to discussing
my immediate action is: change the room title to removed all referencing to "cabbage"
"Should we invite new users from the main site to chat, to guide them into asking better questions?". I don't think we need a formal resolution for this. If you want to foster a user, go ahead and invite them.
yup, no need to pro-actively spam main with the room
@AndrasDeak a) "review of 2018 Q3 meeting" in previous Room meetings the room was self-described by regulars as 'unwelcoming' for a couple of years running b) Kevin said "when we open the floor at the end of today's room meeting".
yes, yes, thank you
"bulletin board for job referrals"
I'm not particularly in favor... I'd like to keep things non-commercial
and I still want people to be able to come to chat... heck... even some are bloomin' beep, but we don't have the ability to do so:…
@Kevin I doubt it would see much use, considering that we send away job offers (mostly because they smell like spam)
sending job offers somewhere could work, but only if there's anything on the receiving end
Unless someone has a moving speech in favor, I think we'll resolve to continue going without one
"Should we change our policy about trimming items from the starboard?"
for instance, I insist that ad hominem remarks and directed snark shouldn't stay
The items I trim are stars that new users award to blocks of code in order to thank the person that helped them. Those are of pretty limited interest, so I don't feel much guilt taking them down after a few minutes
What is the policy?!
I've seen stuff randomly removed just because a RO didn't like that user
Both of those are reasonable and welcome
I don't know if we have a policy written down. It seems to comprise "code blocks, mean stuff, things that only one person finds interesting"
yah all 3 of those are fine by me
The last one being applied quite sparingly, to my eye
I haven't once had to annotate my unstar actions with a reason, so it's not just a bit speculative to try and figure out why something got unstarred
not problem with the current RO's so shrugs
ack, gotta go, I will catch up on the rest of the topics later 👋
Ok, resolution: leave as-is, but perhaps write down our loose guidelines somewhere visible
@Kevin ... like the wiki?
Yeah :-)
Circling back times two, review of 2018 resolutions:
"Gather objective data on how many gold-badge users the chat room has, compared to other rooms."
This one, I did a couple weeks ago! shows my work and the results.
add one to python
Congratulations to Docker, whose regulars all have a Docker gold badge. Silver-tier congratulations to Python, which has 70% regulars with python-related gold badges. The second highest on the site by percent, and the highest by raw count :-)
Many pats on the backs all around.
Is this just for bragging rights, or is there swag involved?
I hope there is
Only the satisfaction of a job well done
next: "Establish a mechanism for user grievances." as alluded to in the conversation about the first agenda item, we don't have one of these yet.
Conversely there are some highly active Python users/ gold-badgers who never come to this room.
I propose we use the yammin' chat room for that
Not everyone likes to chat
We now have two shiny concrete resolutions which will hopefully accelerate work on this. In addition, please accept my sincere personal apology for my own executive dysfunction.
@Aran-Fey the reason why we didn't want that is endless meta discussions mixing with python. It should be separate.
(If memory serves. Perhaps that's just my reason for not wanting that)
I wonder if a possible stopgap could be to have a meta-Python room? or would the moderators not like a room that isn't specifically about a programming language?
I think mods could tolerate it. The airing of grievances got mixed with requests for it to be anonymous, and chat isn't.
I'm fine with whatever, but as long as no alternatives exist I will voice my concerns in here and nobody better try to stop me
Though I fear what dark words it may bring, I'm willing to try it. Resolution: create a Meta Python room for the public non-anonymous airing of grievances
@Aran-Fey well somebody might try, but you are right
next: "Put more effort into warning users before kicking them"
I think this is hard to measure, but I feel like we're doing alright at this.
I don't think that has been an issue for a long time. In other words, we have.
It's kind of hard to tell if someone's been kicked, but I do think we've improved at that
Absent any better, transparent mechanism, I recommend it should be allowable for users to discuss grievances in the room. And moreover, those discussions should not be deleted/sent to Ourobouros.
I might not say "you will be kicked", but it's hard to miss the explicit warnings. Words along the lines of "stop".
I don't hate the idea of bringing up quick issues in main chat, but if it drags out, I reserve the right to migrate to MetaPython
sounds reasonable to me
@AndrasDeak Yeah, I think that's a good approach.
Next: "Include a link to SOPython’s Github page."
since the meta room would be accessible (at worst read-only with permissions granted by default), moving messages there should be fine
(but moving on)
We indirectly do this already, with a link to "sopython-site v1.7.1" at the footer of every SOPython page. I don't think it's quite important enough to put in the room description.
What would the goal of such a link be?
Increase community engagement with our open-source work, I suppose
I think the users enthusiastic about that kind of thing can find their way there with a bit of work ;-)
Link from the wiki
@Kevin yeah, that's what I was thinking
@PaulMcG :P
Hmm, it may be logical to add a more explicit link to the "Contact Us" section of the /chatroom page. Resolution: add a more explicit link to the "Contact Us" section of the /chatroom page.
Oops, I forgot the pandas item. "How can we influence new users to ask better pandas questions on the main site?"
a) It happened to me a couple of weeks ago. b) There was no explicit warning. c) There was no comment directed to me at all d) There was merely a general "Let's please stop..." comment which is a personal suggestion, not an order, and sounds like an individual suggestion, not an RO command e) I never saw that comment, because it was apparently intentionally posted just before kicking me f) Moreover, all this was done in retaliation against me for raising repeated behavior by other user
there are a few things to unpack here
@Kevin should we move on or stick here for a while?
Let's stick here.
Can kicked users not read messages sent just before they're kicked? That's a problem. What does it say when you try to go back in to the room?
I was under the impression that you could join, but in a read-only way
At the very least I'd think that the ping would be directed to the kicked user's inbox, accessible from the main site
@smci a) Okay. b) When a room owner says "let's drop the subject" they mean it. It might sound polite, because we're all reasonable people here. I don't feel that making moderation imperatives sound police-y would be an improvement. If your soft skills necessitate that I do this, I will take care to be explicit about consequences. Most users don't find it difficult to understand that "stop discussing this subject" means "if you don't, I will make you".
@Kevin feel free to kick me for shortDuration, so that I can report observations
Ok, thanks for volunteering :-)
Bye for now... I guess we'll find out in a minute what it looks like
@Kevin No, in the case where a comment was deliberately posted to make me look bad, knowing that I would not subsequenrly be able to read it (or point out that it was untruthful and disparaging) until after the kick. Moreover the kick itself was a violation of policy, and in retaliation. Yet as to the user who violated policy repeatedly against me, nothing happened to them.
Which policy? Stack Exchange policy? Or room policy?
@smci e) I don't just post a warning to drop a subject and instantly kick users. So some time must have went on between the two events, and you are not exempt from repercussions if you don't pay attention to what goes on in chat. More importantly, "apparently intentionally posted just before kicking me" is an accusation that I reject. Assuming flat-out bad faith is beyond response from me.
user image
We can discuss about misunderstandings and miscommunication, but if you accuse us (or me, doesn't matter) with intentional harm then I don't think there's anything I can say at that point
I got that when I was kicked. I was not able to read the room. I didn't think to check the transcript which would have likely been a workaround
I also suspect that the transcript is still readable. I don't want to repeat the experiment since the timeout is automatically longer the second time.
Just to be clear: messages before the kick are meant to be read before the kick
@inspectorG4dget Yes, you cannot see what claimed warning might or might not have existed, and you can't see the transcript until after kickban.
I often leave messages while the user is out, which they should be able to see when they come back. At times I explicitly point them to the messages posted in the mean time.
Hmm. So isn't visible during the kick duration? I don't like that.
@smci f) again, calling moderation action "retaliation" is way off the mark. I will kick whomever I need to keep the room at peace. If you are disrupting the peace for whatever reason that you think is merited, you are a problem.
What I personally think about a person is irrelevant when I moderate.
I don't know if it's a huge problem that users can't see the "I kicked you because..." message until after the timeout ends. It's very very rare that the timeout lasts more than, say, ten minutes, so it doesn't take all that long to discover the justification.
does kickDuration reset after longTime? or is it a strict counter? eg: "You were kicked for the first time, for 1min 5 years ago. Today, your kickban will be 2min"
@inspectorG4dget after 24 hours I think
after 3 kicks or so mods get an autoflag
@Kevin I still think that kickedUser should get kickReason in that screenshot
so it's hard to miss both persistent problem users and abuse of kicks
@AndrasDeak cool beans
@AndrasDeak b) I did not read AD's personal suggestion. AD you keep conflating your personal opinion with your RO status with making comments on behalf of the majority ROs. I recommend you stop doing that and use the phrases "As an RO..." or Speaking on behalf of ROs..." e) That is what happened, and in fact worse: there was no warning at all, and since I was not @ messaged I never saw it. "Let's stop doing X..." is a personal suggestion, not an order, not "telling people",...
... and not "telling @ individual users"
@inspectorG4dget there's no "reason", just "kick" :(
I think it would be excellent if SO implemented a "Kick Reason" field. [wistful sigh]
oh schucks! that /would/ be /so/ useful (souds sarcastic, but I really mean it)
yeah, it would
I do think there is merit to the suggestion of making a clear distinction between "helpful suggestions made by ROs as part of regular conversation" and "instructions given by ROs using their authority as an RO"
@smci I promise I will try to ping you with an official hat and official wording if I want you to stop doing what you're doing
I usually add "<donning my RO hat>" when I flex my mighty abilities, and I find that works pretty well
My impression that a friendly-sounding suggestion is enough for people to take a hint is clearly wrong
so I'm sorry about that
Programmers like clear distinct lines :-)
It has always ever been thus.
@smci - is this some progress on your issue?
@AndrasDeak Much of that claim is disparaging, and incorrect. Other people can verify that. Without using the R******N-word, I was kicked after another user attacked me in the chatroom (and not for the first time). The other user was not kicked, nor warned not to post attacks in chat. Kicking me in that circumstance was per se unreasonable; discussions about etiquette of kicking are secondary. This comes back to a repeated topic in the room for several years: unwelcoming, viz. RO behavior.
I think I'm blind, but it's not immediately obvious to me, that the usernames are italicized. This makes it difficult for gadgetEyes to recognize ROs immediately. But I've been here long enough to know who the regulars are
@inspectorG4dget most people are unaware of that detail, and mobile again doesn't discern room owners
@smci okay
Is there an actionable suggestion here?
Adressing the "violation of policy" point. If I understand correctly, this is about ROs violating Stack Exchange site policy. I don't think we have violated policy. Obviously I'm biased, and trying to convince me would be quite difficult. I enthusiastically encourage you to seek justice from a higher authority. Perhaps make a post on Meta, or contact a moderator through flagging or some other means.
@AndrasDeak are we (for some loose definition of "we") therefore saying that we don't really car about making that distinction to users? or is this a known issue, somewhere in the backlog?
Stack Exchange can and has unseated ROs that were being naughty, so it's not an impossible goal.
@inspectorG4dget one of many issues in the interface, I think we'd all like ROship to be more obvious
but since we're not in charge of the software...see one of the earlier agenda points
@AndrasDeak I seem to recall some usernames were blue in the past? Is this related? were they perhaps diamonds (which would mean that I've conflated the issue)?
@AndrasDeak The actionable suggestions I see are: don your RO hat before making RO proclamations, and make sure that kick reasons have a direct ping
@inspectorG4dget yup, mods are blue on desktop
@Kevin I was kicked in retaliation for objecting to another user's sustained attack on me here in chat and in comments of questions. The kick itself was unjust - and you each can and should verify thatby reading the preceding transcript. Other user deserved to be kicked and warned (only one of their comments was deleted). There is clearly no effective channel where any of that can be fixed. It's further disparagement to continue to disparage me...
Second actionable item: the disparagement of disparagements should cease.
can ROs be green or otherColor then? Seems like the software's already set up for that kind of shenanigans. I know room6/ROs can't really do anything about this - I guess I'm just ranting
@inspectorG4dget see Jon's feature request about allowing low-reps into chat, sitting in the middle of nowhere with no change whatsoever
At the time of that conversation it was my opinion that the other user did not merit a kick. That is still my opinion at this time. If you feel that this constitutes an unwelcoming environment on the order of violating Stack Exchange policy, bring it up with Stack Exchange.
...The claim that I was "told to stop discussing it" in a general suggestion comment, with no "speaking as a RO", posted seconds before I was kicked, which I was not notified of since no @ mention, is incorrect. But all this procedural is secondary to the kicking being unjustified in the first place.
@smci thank you, but you have made that point already.
Is there anything else?
"How can we influence new users to ask better pandas questions on the main site?"
@Kevin This is the first I've heard that you reviewed it (or at least, partially reviewed it, without seeing other user's deleted comments). Did you ask me for the full timeline of what the other user posted? Did you notice that some of their comments on the matter were deleted? (if they weren't violating, why did that happen?)
Room Owners can see messages that are moved to the Ouroboros room, and they can see the previous revisions of messages that were edited or deleted by their owner. If the message was deleted by a moderator, I'm not sure I can see it, but when a blue diamond is involved, it's probably above my paygrade anyway.
I continue to uphold that new users are uninfluenceable, so I don't think there's much we can do collectively to help pandas users. Individual action, such as inviting the user to chat for some direct mentoring, continues to be possible, but that doesn't require a resolution from us.
Just to be clear: I stopped the discussion because it was getting out of hand. I only kicked who didn't drop the discussion when I said to do so. The kicking was not because of the preceding argument, where both parties were off, but because one party tried to drag the argument on after I said to end it.
I understand that the warnings were not insufficient, which I'm sorry for. I will take care so that part doesn't repeat.
@Kevin I'll be happy to provide all the details to you offline. My point is that there is little RO procedure, and that kicking can and should be near the least line in resolving (legitimate) issues. Where one particular RO is no longer able to resolve an issue, they can simply step back on that issue and say "I will refer this matter to other ROs"
@smci On the contrary, kicking is meant as a quick glass of water to snap a user out of problematic behaviour if nice words don't work.
that's the reason why a first kick lasts a minute or so
The very finalmost agenda item from 2018 Q3 is "Hold a meeting one quarter after this one, around Nov 19 2018". There's not much to say about this other than, boy we really dropped the ball on this one and never had the meeting. As the de facto chairman at that time, I accept full responsibility, and I have no excuse. Please accept my most groveling apology, and a resolution to do better.
@AndrasDeak You could (and should) have kicked or warned the other user at any point in their trail of behavior. That's the underlying issue. When you kick (or at minimum don't warn) the wrong person, it's rewarding the other uer's violating behavior.
So you're saying...I did wrong to kick you so easily, but I should've kicked the other person you were arguing with earlier?
ROs already talk with other ROs all the time about current issues, and will discuss actions they take. Just because that discussion doesn't fall in your favor doesn't mean there's something bad going on.
Resolution: hold a meeting one quarter after this one, around February 7 2020"
That's it for formal agenda items. and so I will open the floor for, uh, the argument about kicking that's already happening
@smci Quoting myself because my memory is not the best: "he may have been harsher than necessary, but I don't think he was rude". This boils down to subjective assessment of language.
I don't kick users for being harsh but not rude. I stop the harshness from escalating into an argument.
Which I did.
@davidism It's unclear what you're saying: that "all major RO actions are automatically seen and reviewed by other ROs" or "RO actions are (sometimes) reviewed by other ROs when the first RO messages them and asks them to". Remember, 99% of us here have zero visiblity into whatever process might or might not be.
You can make a point that my stopping was inadequately conveyed, which you did, and I accept. You can make a point that it was rude, to which I can't say anything except "okay".
We're constantly finding a balance between "let's give just one more chance" and "it's time to take further measures". We generally try to communicate what we want, unless we've already communicated to that user before and the behavior is continuing yet again. Despite saying we don't know all the context in your specific case, we keep track of quite a lot of context.
From what I've seen when I drop in and when it's mentioned elsewhere, I don't see any issues with how Andras has been handling RO duties. Additionally, he's said he'll go even further in communicating decisions, so I'm not sure what you expect at this point.
FWIW I've reviewed the RO action here and I agree with Andras' decision to kick.
@smci And for the record, I posted the "drop it" message at 9:24 UTC, saying "So let's please drop the arguing (this goes for everyone). Points have been made.". And you posted your ongoing message at 9:27, three minutes later. I expected you to have read my message by then (on the contrary to "intentionally posted warning before kicking me".
it is one-minute cool-down.
I think this item has gone as far as it can in the format allotted, so, any other last-minute items?
@AndrasDeak a) I did not see any such message before I was kicked. b) There was no @ mention so no ping c) I was writing an answer to a question, in another tab. I was in that other tab when I got ping'ed from the Python room with a kick-notice. I couldn't even see why for a minute later. e) The kick was wrongful, as documented.
there was @PaulMcG's suggestion about welcoming to newbies
@Kevin Can we make some recommendations on RO behavior?
Certainly, but I suggest doing so in the Meta Python room which I am about to create in the next five minutes. Until then, I bang my gavel, signalling the formal end of the room meeting.
@Kevin except Paul's suggestion about newbies? :P
@Kevin What was the point of discussing RO behavior or unwelcoming, for another year, without making recommendations?
You don't have to wait another year :-) You have to wait five minutes
@AndrasDeak Oops, I can't unbang the gavel.
I should've pinged you with the first message, sorry
@Kevin umm you should have banged three times.
@Kevin Ok to be clear, multiple (non-newbie) users have described the room as unwelcoming and highlighted issues in RO behavior for several years now, yet we have no recommendations about doing anything about it. That is the outcome of the meeting, yes?
@Kevin There was no agreement to move to MetaPython.
@smci Here's my recommendation: if you feel that this constitutes an unwelcoming environment on the order of violating Stack Exchange policy, bring it up with Stack Exchange.
@Kevin please add owners:P
@smci Sure there was. I resolved to reserve the right to move meta discussions to MetaPython, and nobody objected.
@Kevin That's not how meetings work, even if you're the chair. There was no vote or consensus on your proposal. Several people disagreed and made counterproposals, including keeping such discussions here, as they akways have been.
brb, the work server is on fire
@smci thank you for your input
banging the gavel
user image