Hi everyone, Thanks for the feedback, both public and private. As with similar situations in the past this was not an easy decision, and there are arguments on both sides. It's always hard to lose a valued member of the community, even temporarily, but sometimes it becomes necessary. I'll try to elaborate on a few points and respond to the above questions in aggregate below (even then this got really lengthy): *
Contact info for the leadership team can be found at https://coreboot.org/leadership.html (https://coreboot.org/leadership.html). We also have an arbitration team composed of people other than the leadership who you can reach out to for help resolving problems like the ones mentioned in my earlier e-mail. *
This particular issue was not brought to the attention of coreboot leadership by anybody at Google or Intel. Someone in coreboot's small business ecosystem asked us to look into CB:84356 (https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/84356), which later spawned other patches. The subtext is that upstream development is very difficult and spending days squabbling over a tiny part of a spec that we don't control (FSP in this case, but the same is true of SBI, TFA, UEFI, etc) is counterproductive. What caught the leadership team's attention was the introduction of personal insults into the mix which made a heated debate between two individuals much worse. We expect better from everyone, especially senior members of the community. *
We acknowledge that Nico has a certain communication style, and like others in this thread we've each been on the receiving end of it and have rationalized brushing it off for one reason or another. However, this does not work in aggregate within a community or organization where many people can take it many different ways, especially given that we're a global organization with people of varying levels of language proficiency.
One can create a hostile environment even without overt actions such as hitting someone, yelling profanity, inappropriate contact, etc. To put this in another context, imagine the storm that would ensue if your company's HR department responded to complaints of sexual harassment by a guy named Bob in the sales department by saying "We've known for years that Bob likes to flirt with his coworkers and we have asked him to tone it down. Some have told us that they don't mind too much, and those who complain probably just misunderstand his communication style. Besides, a lot of people like Bob and he is a really great salesman!" Eventually it comes crashing down with more and more collateral damage the longer it's left unchecked. * With regards to minutes of our meeting, no such document exists. If it did then I would be skeptical of sharing it for legal reasons. Rest assured that we operate in the open as much as possible, and our decisions are recorded in forums such as the periodic leadership meetings. On rare occasions where we make a closed-door decision we post relevant details on this mailing list ASAP. Private meetings are rare and ad-hoc. Some have to do with SFC business such as expense approval or GPL matters, but most of the time they're about reports of misconduct and are often centered around one particular person (this should tell you something). * This enforcement action was not prompted by a single incident, but by many over the last few years. Some people here may recall that Nico's +2/-2 privileges were revoked in response to a previous incident. Earlier this year we met with him at his request to negotiate reinstating these privileges, which we did. Part of the agreement was that he would self-moderate his comments and not get involved in other people's arguments, e.g. don't show up and pour gas on the flames. We were clear about what type of behavior was problematic and what consequences were to be expected.It took about 7 months for this agreement to be violated, which fits into the pattern of past incidents where this individual has received a slap on the wrist only to repeat previous behaviors a few months later. Our default position was that this would result in a permanent ban since this has gone on for so long and softer disciplinary measures abjectly failed. That seemed harsh in this case, so we made a concession to only implement a ban of one year to see if it would make any difference. One year from now the terms will be the same but there will not be any more chances.
October 2, 2024 7:27 AM, "Angel Pons" <th3fanbus@gmail.com (mailto:th3fanbus@gmail.com?to=%22Angel%20Pons%22%20th3fanbus@gmail.com)> wrote: Hello list, On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 7:40 AM David Hendricks via coreboot <coreboot@coreboot.org (mailto:coreboot@coreboot.org)> wrote: Dear coreboot community members,
Recently there was some unpleasant activity on Gerrit which violated our community’s guidelines regarding respectful conduct. In this case the coreboot leadership team determined that the behavior in question fit a long pattern about which the individual had been previously warned. As a result we have decided to remove Nico from our community for a period of 1 year. We hope this will be a sufficient cooling off period and that we will not need to take more drastic steps in the future. David, I see you are one of the three members of the leadership team [1]. Could you please provide the following, privately if necessary? - the minutes for the meeting in which the decision was made (which might contain references to the documents below; if the meeting minutes are not available, I would like to know why) - links to the aforementioned "unpleasant activity on Gerrit" - the guidelines from [2] or [3] (I could not find a document called "community guidelines") that were violated Not knowing what happened nor why makes me afraid to contribute, lest the same fate befall me as well. Especially considering that Nico has been a role model for me as I was learning the ropes of firmware development, so most of the things about coreboot as well as authoring and reviewing changes I have learned from him. As we've said in the past, we trust that developers in our community are acting in good faith and can generally resolve issues on their own. In cases where two sides cannot reach an agreement, for example in a code review, we expect all engagement to be respectful and to help drive toward a solution. For technical matters this often means starting a mailing list discussion, bringing an issue up during the coreboot leadership meeting, starting a task force to tackle a large problem, or other means of gathering input and collaborating.
Personal matters should be brought to the leadership team directly. We'll listen to any complaints or frustrations, but cannot tolerate personal attacks made on Gerrit, the mailing list, or other forums. It is always required that we treat others in a professional manner and communicate with respect, regardless of how strongly we may feel about a particular issue. A tiny remark about professional manner: when interacting with others I know, I like sprinkling a bit of humour in my messages, but without being disrespectful towards anyone (no dark humour and no making fun of others) or compromising my knowledge/abilities (do not overdo it and consider that not everyone might get it). I believe this does not make me unprofessional, but I am happy to listen in case anyone disagrees. Other than that, I agree with the above, but I also believe it is important to be aware that misunderstandings can and will happen, especially considering that people from all over the world can contribute, each with their own culture and tradition. Not everyone is a native English speaker (even if it does not seem like it, I am not). Not everyone is capable of noticing when a discussion is getting too heated/tense, let alone do something to end it before it is too late (I am trying to get better at this). Not everyone communicates the same way, e.g. autistic people tend to communicate in direct and literal ways that can be misinterpreted by non-autistic people [4] (I am autistic, I have had this happen before), whereas other autistic people have no issues with this communication style. I believe that the information in [4] (especially the list of 12 rules) is valuable and I would appreciate having them integrated into our own guidelines, although I agree they should be guidelines rather than strictly-enforced rules: misunderstandings are *still* inevitable and will happen. In case of a misunderstanding, I think the most sensible way to proceed is for someone (preferably one of the participants) to notice that "something feels wrong" and remain calm, disengaging from the discussion if needed (e.g. wait before replying to an email or review comment). If possible, try to bring it up without pointing fingers, e.g. "I feel this discussion is heating up: is there anything I can do to help, or am I reading into things?" or (quoting a response) "This sounded quite rude to me, was it intentional?". This requires being able to recognise that tension is building up and restraining one's impulses; I understand this is not trivial to accomplish, especially if one is susceptible to getting angry (e.g. me). If anybody feels that a discussion has become too heated, or that somebody is not being treated respectfully, or are simply unsure of how to proceed in a difficult situation, please reach out to the coreboot leadership and we will chart a path forward together._______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org (mailto:coreboot@coreboot.org) To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org (mailto:coreboot-leave@coreboot.org) Best regards, Angel [1]: https://www.coreboot.org/leadership.html (https://www.coreboot.org/leadership.html) [2]: https://doc.coreboot.org/community/code_of_conduct.html (https://doc.coreboot.org/community/code_of_conduct.html) [3]: https://doc.coreboot.org/contributing/gerrit_guidelines.html (https://doc.coreboot.org/contributing/gerrit_guidelines.html) [4]: https://warwick.ac.uk/services/socialinclusion/projects/letstalkaboutdisabil... (https://warwick.ac.uk/services/socialinclusion/projects/letstalkaboutdisabil...)