Niclas, I understand that you are opposed to moderation and that your opposition has an emotional side to it. But responses like this make it difficult for other people to participate in the conversation. This in turn damages our ability to examine a wide range of opinions and ideas.
Can you please examine your thoughts and feelings and determine: * Do you have an argument that would convince someone else that what is proposed is not good, possibly starting from our shared goal of supporting communities that produce software for the public good? * Or is the dissonance a result of the fact that one of the values that is important to you isn't shared by the people you are currently interacting with? In either case, can you try to put the argument or the value into words that would convince us of a better way, or at least help us to better understand your values? And can you accept that we may finish this conversation reaching a conclusion that you don't agree with? If not, then you should ask yourself if interacting on the topic of moderation of the D&I mailing lists is a productive use of your and our time and energy. Best Regards, Myrle On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 10:58 PM Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> wrote: > Deep into subjective-emotions-land... > > Craig's post resulted in my "non-productive emotional response", and if he > had listened to me previously (over many years), he should "reasonably > expect" that to be the case. > > So, please add for transparency "reasonably expected to provoke a > non-productive response from people on our opinion-approved-list" > > Because seriously folks, I am not going to sit idle and watch you corrupt > the tenets of openness and transparency, with authoritarian methods to > squelch opposition. > > And to pre-empt the response that there are no such thing going on; that's > what all such systems claim when introduced. Always a so called noble > purpose. > > Those that sacrifice freedom for security, deserves neither freedom nor > security. > > > // Niclas > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019, 04:08 Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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] > > > > > > > > >
