Hi, I'd also like to comment on "Comment can reasonably be expected to provoke an angry response from a significant portion of the people on the list. ".
I described this in else-thread as "offensive, ad hominem, triggering". So it's not just angry but offended, scared, disgusted. Such as descriptions of horrible acts committed by (euphemistically) war criminals, perverts, and human rights abusers. Is this a different category from "provoke anger" or should it all be rolled into one? Craig > On Jul 21, 2019, at 2:00 AM, Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey all, > > There actually already is a moderation suggestion for the case of off-topic > messages here > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EDI/Draft+moderation+guidelines > > "The comment would be more appropriate on the list <list>. Please send it > there instead." > > But I feel like it may not fully cover this concern. Craig or Shane, Do > you have a suggestion for how to describe the case you are referring to, > and how to respond to it in the form of a concrete moderator guideline? > > Thanks, > Myrle > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 11:49 PM Shane Curcuru <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Craig Russell wrote on 2019-7-20 4:47PM EDT: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think that one of the guidelines for moderation of a working list (as >> opposed to a general list) should be: >>> >>> Does this message help serve the function of the group it is directed to? >>> >>> There is a lot of discussion around whether a post is offensive, ad >> hominem, triggering, etc. and these clearly should be rejected either via >> social or technical means. >>> >>> But do we have consensus that for a working group (like this one at D&I) >> we should insist that messages have to be helpful to the group in >> fulfilling its mission? >> >> +1 to all above. Yes, some of the calls here may be perceived as >> subjective; as long as the moderators are also active participants in >> the work and are on the relevant committee/PMC, then we should trust >> them in general to make the right call. >> >> For random email senders, this makes sense: we're happy for each project >> (or committee) to set some of their own guidelines in a broad sense for >> how they work together. >> >> For ASF Members, while there is a long established de facto ability to >> have read access to mailing lists, that does not translate to any >> particular merit in terms of committing or working in any particular PMC >> or committee. So if a specific PMC or committee discusses and works on >> documented moderation guidelines, I believe they should be able to apply >> them to Members and non-Members alike. >> >> In terms of escalations (i.e. when a poster disagrees with the >> moderation itself, and to ensure the board or relevant officer are aware >> of possibly problematic moderation rejections) we alredy have a policy: >> >> https://www.apache.org/board/escalation >> >>> Sorry if this isn't totally relevant. >> >> No, perfect timing and well framed. >> >> -- >> >> - Shane >> Director & Member >> The Apache Software Foundation >> Craig L Russell [email protected]
