Hey all, I'm not detecting a strong preference from the group here. Naomi is strongly in favor of the provision. Patricia is strongly against it, Awasum is against it.
I'm going to remove this moderation guideline. This can be changed again if we can detect a pattern of abuse or that we'd like to put a stop to or something else happens that causes the community to develop their opinion further. I would like us to be flexible in growing our moderation guidelines as we learn each other's preferences and develop our understanding of how we want to interact as a community. Best, Myrle On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:26 PM Awasum Yannick <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I prefer a situation where anyone call out poor behaviour as they arise > here...onsite..in public. I will prefer we allow people to make their > opinions known even if at times they might be off topic or not appropriate > for some people. > > We should rather call out bad behaviour here. Even if there becomes a need > to suspend or put somebody under moderation, this action should not persist > for too long (moderate/suspend someone for 30 days and then allow them to > post without moderation and see if the VERY bad behaviour continues). > > I say this because I believe that at times chaos is a pathway to growth. > {The next few sentences might be off topic to this thread but I will just > go ahead and say them.} > > Look at the thread which brought about the creation of this D&I committee > for example. I mean the one on ComDev. It was chaotic and went on for weeks > but the outcome was that the Apache Community learnt that we had a > diversity problem and that action was needed and was taken. > > I dont know about you all but the other chaotic discussion here surrounding > Outreachy and "Pay for Development" or not was an educational experience > for me. I learnt how to argue, learnt English, learnt about the Apache way. > it was not pretty at times but I think humans are resilient enough to > handle some of these issues. We came out of it and are now moving into the > implementation phase of things. I think the discussions we had during that > time was worth it. Some eggs might have been broken but overall, I will say > freedom for people to express themselves is a good thing and we should > maintain it. > > In concluding, I will say, we should not actively police this mailing list > with rules and regulations but to socially, diplomatically and politely > call out bad behaviour preferably in private. people do want to do good and > be good. > > > Thanks. > Awasum > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:36 PM Naomi S <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I want the moderation team to be a team of people trusted by the VP D&I > to > > make the call re who is trolling or not. that is subjective, and it is, > for > > sure, going to come down to shared values. but it's important for this > > initiative that we can assert a coherent set of shared values > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 19:33, Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:25 PM Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > I don't think there is a way, because one person's troll may be > another > > > > person's sincerely held and strongly expressed opinion. > > > > > > > > My preference would be to drop it completely. The CoC already covers > > the > > > > cases that I think should be restricted. We are all adults here. If > > > > someone wants to make the rest of the mailing list participants think > > > > they are rude and inconsiderate, they should be let do so. > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to hear what the rest of the committee prefers. I can accept > > > either approach. > > > > > > The options are: > > > 1.) Continue to block trolling. Either use the existing wording or > look > > > for a better wording. > > > 2.) Not block trolling in technical moderation, but fall back to social > > > moderation. Some trolling may fall under other rules (for example, > list > > > relevance). > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Myrle > > > > > >
