Roll those together into a "reasonably expected to provoke a non-productive emotional response" is what I would suggest.
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 12:59 PM Craig Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > >
