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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to