Hey D&I peeps,

I've added a point to the moderation guidelines:

Problem: *"Post contains ad hominem unnecessarily used to support an
argument.  (For example "Your claim is mendacious.")"*

Desired result for the community: *"Help all participants collaborate in a
constructive manner, while still allowing substantive disagreement."*

Moderation comment:

*"The phrase "<phrase>"*

*...contains an inappropriate attack on one or more fellow discussion
participants.  Please remove or reformulate the phrase in your e-mail and
resend your comments.  For example, if you wrote "Your claim is mendacious"
you could replace that phrase with "Your claim is false" or simply delete
it."*

Your thoughts?

Best,
Myrle

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 12:26 PM Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Reply via email to