Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 16, 2005, at 5:17 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
derby-user@db.apache.org has been grappling with someone who
delights in belittling other posters on the list. The topic was
raised on women@ (see the thread starting with http://mail-
archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-women/200511.mbox/%3c4371355F.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ), but I think it's more appropriate for
this list.
For crying out loud, would you please supply links to the exact posts
you consider to be in poor taste and the person's name? I just wasted
10 minutes trying to follow the bread crumbs. You have to make it
easier on reviewers -- everyone seems to be painfully avoiding
a pointer to an actual message.
sorry -- I'm not trying to frustrate folks. I considered posting
specific links, but withdrew them at the end, even though they are links
to public archives. The name at the core is Michael Segel.
Below are links to public responses to some of his posts (which are
numerous enough that they alone would be frustrating to wade through):
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-user/200508.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-user/200510.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-user/200511.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-user/200512.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-user/200512.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The first two posts were disassociated from the offending message and
the tactic clearly didn't work.
The last two were recent (this week). Off line communication makes me
believe he has no intention of moderating his behavior, hence the
question of at what point you unsubscribe/deny a user.
In general, it is the responsibility of the PMC to govern its own
lists. If the PMC decides to boot them, then go ahead. Most
groups just shun the user.
One of the DB PMC members was asking about frequency of denial, which is
an excellent question, which Noel responded to with "Rarely. Really
really rarely." It's helpful for us to know how other projects at the
ASF handle such situations. I'm getting questions from users asking why
we don't just boot him. I'm happy to respond with "The ASF doesn't like
to do that except for the most extreme cases" if that is the right
answer. This case is merely very annoying, not extreme.
I think ignoring is an excellent tactic for a developer's list. I worry
that isn't strong enough for a user's list, but I also wouldn't want to
embark on a path that could backfire.
One technique that I have applied with very nice success works like this:
1) somebody crosses the line of respect and you see a pattern
[at this point you feel you should say something: *DON'T*]
2) but somebody less clueful will
3) you flame the #2 guy
Now, it sounds pretty weird but this is the rationale:
1) those who cross the line of respect with a pattern do it
intentionally, the motivations are numerous but they are normally asking
for help or they are just looking for a good fight
2) in both cases, replying to him (yes, him, it's *always* a guy) and
tell him what the rules of the community and stuff like "flame-free
zone" are just going to make things worse. If he wants help, he'll start
looking for the fight, if the fight was what he was looking for, he
found it.
3) there is always somebody in the community that doesn't know this
pattern, so they will reply quietly or, even better, they will flame him.
4) if they flame him back, it's easier: just flame the counter-flamer.
The counter-flamer probably has tons of respect for you, because he
(again, a guy) wants to protect the community he cares for. He's just
not seeing the whole picture. So, what you do is tell him that the
original flamer has all the rights in the world to speak in the way he
wants. If #2 doesn't flame (as in your case), it's harder for the
reasons below.
5) let's say you flamed the counter-flamer, this has two consequences:
a) the counter-flamer is a little offended but a private email
explaining this rational would save his ego and also have the benefit of
increasing the trust he has on you as a leader. For sure he will stop
flaming, because that's what he wanted to avoid in the first place and
calling him on that stops it.
b) but more important, the original flaming guy is puzzled. If he
was looking for help, he found out that he doesn't have to tone his
language, he feels more accepted, therefore less defensive, therefore
his language changes and gets easier to deal with. If he was looking for
a fight, he knows he's not going to get it here and leaves.
Now, the *WORST* thing you can do is to reply "this is a flame-free
zone". It's very hard to get out of there, because now the guy feels
cornered and anything you do in relation to his behavior is going to
enforce it.
Kicking him out is going to be even worse: first, he can come back with
another email address and even a nickname, second the community will
fell that the leadership is weak and that they might be next to get
kicked out if they had a bad day and the striking software didn't work
and their bosses kicked their ass (and so on).
So, my personal opinion on your question in the title is: never. The
immediate benefit is very small compared to the price you have to pay
for having that precedent down the road.
How to deal with this guy? ignore him and wait for the counter-flamer :-)
--
Stefano.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
