On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 16:26 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:00 PM, drew <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 19:56 +0100, Terry Ellison wrote:
<snip> > > 5) If, hypothetically, you did not have the ability to do "peer > reviews and discussion on specific posts by named users", what would > happen then? Is there any particular reason why you could not have a > public discussion about a post that you are considering deleting? > Maybe in a forum that only moderators can post to, of course. But is > there any reason you could not be transparent about how moderation > works? This might actually help enforce what your usage expectations > are. > I just described the process - in practice it happens quite infrequently - the overwhelming deletes are just simple and not so simple attempts to use the forums as a link farm. There are people that actually run adds for contractors to do this type of thing - and it usually takes a few posts to catch on to what they are up to. Simply being discourteous or rude isn't going to get you here. People show up all the time pissed and frustrated and often blow off steam, sometimes quite vigorously and that's fine - but if it turns into f this and f that, and you sob this or bastards that...then quite frankly no that will not be tolerated. Nearly all of what a person does there is just as you described, getting people to refine a question so it makes sense, or getting it to the right place, or recognizing a bug report and getting it into the issue tracker. As for trusting people, we do that in spades, it's not about trust it is about working collaboratively. I noticed for instance that just today on the Apache Infra mailing list, Terry had implemented something, another person on the list rolled it back and then told Terry why - they then discussed it - I don't think that was a matter of lack of trust, it was a matter of them learning to work together. //drew
