On 12/05/2017 06:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated. >> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't >> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the >> information being presented, or they disagree with it. >> > I don't have any issue with discussion of facts, or even the offering > of opinion, but the problem is that in these sorts of situations one > side presents their side of the story and nobody is free to counter > with the other side because of policy (and a reasonable policy at > that). And so the allegations just go unchallenged and are repeatedly > posted. What value does this add? At best it misleads people into > thinking that things like comrel actions are unfounded, and drives > away potential contributors.
When a situation drives a way potential contributors, a closer look should happen. A split might be the wrong choice, but discussing the need for a remedy is good. > If these were discussions about policy in the abstract and not in the > specific then there wouldn't be as much difficulty (indeed, this is > the form our disagreement is taking right now). We can certainly have > a free conversation about whether somebody who sexually harasses > another developer ought to be booted or not. The problem comes in > when somebody has been the subject of a decision made based on their > individual behavior - there is no way to have a reasonable public > conversation about this. > > IMO discussions about individual comrel/etc decisions simply should > not be considered on-topic for our lists. Yes, but blocking of expression / communication is tricky: Within a particular organization (in this case, one focusing on FOSS/Libre software) demands that censorship be prevented at all costs VS expectation that disruption won't be tolerated, nor will general off-topic rudeness/disrespect, or even cruelty - some expression can only exist in good faith when it can be reasonably understood to further the overall objectives for the particular organization (in our case, gentoo) For a list specifically meant for development, more restrictions are a reasonable starting point than elsewhere. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, even if it's just "keep discussions limited to matters associated with the current thread" (germane) THIS discussion wouldn't make sense on a dev-util/cmake thread.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature