Re: Planet Debian revisions [and 1 more messages]
Hello, On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 05:29pm GMT, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: >> Exactly. I understand Ulrike's practical concerns but do not consider >> them to outweigh the need to avoid permanency. Even writing "possible >> CoC violation" could hurt someone twenty years down the line. > > Ack. I have no strong opinion on this detail and trust your judgement to > find a possibility that would satisfy concerns of transparency while > being respectful to privacy. I've added a note to the wiki page about this. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Planet Debian revisions [and 1 more messages]
Hello, On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 03:03pm GMT, Ian Jackson wrote: > Years later someone who did some bad things when they were much > younger might reasonably come to us and say "can you please redact > that unfortunate incident from your public web page - it's ancient > history now". We should be able to honour such a request without > using git-filter-branch. Exactly. I understand Ulrike's practical concerns but do not consider them to outweigh the need to avoid permanency. Even writing "possible CoC violation" could hurt someone twenty years down the line. > Surely we can find a way to make this information transparent in a way > that makes it easier to expire it ? Even a dedicated mailing list > would be better since it would let us expire the archives. Yes. The commit message could contain a link to the mailing list archives, which could be made to 404. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Hi Sean! Sean Whitton: > Hello Ulrike, > > On Thu 03 Jan 2019 at 06:03pm GMT, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > >>> Yes, let's avoid this. >> >> As currently phrased, if people are unsure, they should contact the >> planet administrator's team. I think this should solve such concerns. > > I'm afraid I don't follow. I wanted to keep details out of commit > messages because of the fact that commit messages are a permanent > record. How does contacting the planet admin team solve this? Sorry my message was not clear: I think these details should be in the commit message, not necessarily being detailed more than "(possible) violation of CoC" or similar, but if ever people are not sure about how much detail should be in there they should contact planet admins. I found it super useful to be able to look up in Git when & that Norbert had deleted the sentence that stated that the removal of his feed was based on a decision made by the AH team. The AH team (or Laura acting as part of it to be precise) mentioned this explicitly in their commit message. This made it clear that this feed was not supposed to be re-added without communicating either with them, the planet admins or escalating the issue to the DPL if deemed necessary. If they had only added a sentence as a comment in the config file of planet, it would have been even easier to dismiss. Cheers!
Re: Planet Debian revisions [and 1 more messages]
Ulrike Uhlig writes ("Re: Planet Debian revisions"):
> Please, no. A commit message ensures that everybody is aware of the
> removal reason, including planet admins. Resorting to email? I don't
> think emails are encoded in the feeds and we cannot reasonably expect
> people to search for them...
I agree that some kind of publication of the reason is a good thing.
However:
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Planet Debian revisions"):
> I'm afraid I don't follow. I wanted to keep details out of commit
> messages because of the fact that commit messages are a permanent
> record. How does contacting the planet admin team solve this?
I very strongly agree with Sean that we should not immemorialise such
things in commit messages.
Years later someone who did some bad things when they were much
younger might reasonably come to us and say "can you please redact
that unfortunate incident from your public web page - it's ancient
history now". We should be able to honour such a request without
using git-filter-branch.
Surely we can find a way to make this information transparent in a way
that makes it easier to expire it ? Even a dedicated mailing list
would be better since it would let us expire the archives.
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Hello Ulrike, On Thu 03 Jan 2019 at 06:03pm GMT, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: >> Yes, let's avoid this. > > As currently phrased, if people are unsure, they should contact the > planet administrator's team. I think this should solve such concerns. I'm afraid I don't follow. I wanted to keep details out of commit messages because of the fact that commit messages are a permanent record. How does contacting the planet admin team solve this? -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Hi! Roberto C. Sánchez: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 05:39:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: >> >> On #6 I was tempted to add "When a blog is removed, the committer should >> add a comment listing the posts that resulted in it being removed", but >> not sure if that's overloading it a bit too much. >> > Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed, the > committer should send a direct email message to the author of the > removed content explaining the reason for the removal." Please, no. A commit message ensures that everybody is aware of the removal reason, including planet admins. Resorting to email? I don't think emails are encoded in the feeds and we cannot reasonably expect people to search for them... Cheers u.
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Hi, Sean Whitton: > Hello, > > On Thu 03 Jan 2019 at 10:19am -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 05:39:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: >>> >>> On #6 I was tempted to add "When a blog is removed, the committer should >>> add a comment listing the posts that resulted in it being removed", but >>> not sure if that's overloading it a bit too much. >>> >> Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed, the >> committer should send a direct email message to the author of the >> removed content explaining the reason for the removal." >> >> That keeps potentially loaded statements from being recorded in commit >> message forever. > > Yes, let's avoid this. As currently phrased, if people are unsure, they should contact the planet administrator's team. I think this should solve such concerns. Ulrike
Re: Planet Debian revisions
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 05:50:03PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 15271 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > > > And I sometimes remove blogs for them just going 5xx. A commit msg > > > is fine. > > I still think an email to the author would be a good thing in that case. > > I have had parts of my site stop functioning and known of it for some > > time. An email from someone telling me that it is broken is something I > > consider to be helpful. > > In principle I agree. Now tell me, for a good chunk of the planet blogs, > which email? Without investing lots of time to find out. > I see your point. My invalid assumption and my ignorance regarding the implementation of Planet did not allow me to see that there was a potential obstacle there. > > > And who says a commi message is short? Write a novel, if you want. > > > :) > > I think we have enough flamewars ongoing at the moment that I am not > > going to take the bait to start a philosophical/religious discussion on > > the merits of short/concise commit messages :-) > > But but, I was short, I only used 4242 words why I added a comma at that > position! > Just be sure to keep the first line to a maximum of 72 characters followed by a hard line break and a blank line so 'git log --oneline' looks sane. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
Re: Planet Debian revisions
On 15271 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: And I sometimes remove blogs for them just going 5xx. A commit msg is fine. I still think an email to the author would be a good thing in that case. I have had parts of my site stop functioning and known of it for some time. An email from someone telling me that it is broken is something I consider to be helpful. In principle I agree. Now tell me, for a good chunk of the planet blogs, which email? Without investing lots of time to find out. And who says a commi message is short? Write a novel, if you want. :) I think we have enough flamewars ongoing at the moment that I am not going to take the bait to start a philosophical/religious discussion on the merits of short/concise commit messages :-) But but, I was short, I only used 4242 words why I added a comma at that position! -- bye, Joerg
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Quoting Roberto C. Sánchez (2019-01-03 16:33:51) > I have built up quite a backlog of email, so I did not see that the > discussion had effectively concluded when I wrote my message. > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 04:25:14PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > On 15271 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > > > > Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed, > > > the committer should send a direct email message to the author of > > > the removed content explaining the reason for the removal." > > > > Ah please not. > > > > > That keeps potentially loaded statements from being recorded in > > > commit message forever. It also allows the author something > > > perhaps more complete than a short sentence fragment in a commit > > > message upon which to base a decision on how to proceed. > > > > And I sometimes remove blogs for them just going 5xx. A commit msg > > is fine. > > > I still think an email to the author would be a good thing in that > case. I have had parts of my site stop functioning and known of it for > some time. An email from someone telling me that it is broken is > something I consider to be helpful. I find it problematic to _promise_ an email notice upon removal. Sure it is a nice gesture to notify, but I see no reason to codify that. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Planet Debian revisions
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 03:25:07PM +, Sean Whitton wrote: On Thu 03 Jan 2019 at 02:47pm GMT, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: Looks good! I like it. One tiny thingy based on a remark: I've looked up 'slur' in the dictionary and 'slander' and 'libel' seem to be synonyms that might be more widely known. Maybe a native speaker could confirm this. 'slander' seems fine but 'libel' implies you are doing something illegal. 'slander' and 'slurs' need not be illegal. Slander and libel are equally "illegal" under common law: the former is spoken while the latter is written, and both are civil rather than criminal matters. This varies by jurisdiction, as does protection of true statements, so it's important to be clear about the "where". (And historically, slander was punishable by the removal of the tongue--so it hardly seems a lesser matter!) Mike Stone
Re: Planet Debian revisions
I have built up quite a backlog of email, so I did not see that the discussion had effectively concluded when I wrote my message. On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 04:25:14PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 15271 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > > Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed, the > > committer should send a direct email message to the author of the > > removed content explaining the reason for the removal." > > Ah please not. > > > That keeps potentially loaded statements from being recorded in commit > > message forever. It also allows the author something perhaps more > > complete than a short sentence fragment in a commit message upon which > > to base a decision on how to proceed. > > And I sometimes remove blogs for them just going 5xx. A commit msg is fine. > I still think an email to the author would be a good thing in that case. I have had parts of my site stop functioning and known of it for some time. An email from someone telling me that it is broken is something I consider to be helpful. In any event, I don't think it is particularly important enough to warrant changing something for which consensus has already been established. > And who says a commi message is short? Write a novel, if you want. :) > I think we have enough flamewars ongoing at the moment that I am not going to take the bait to start a philosophical/religious discussion on the merits of short/concise commit messages :-) Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Hello, On Thu 03 Jan 2019 at 02:47pm GMT, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > Looks good! I like it. > > One tiny thingy based on a remark: I've looked up 'slur' in the > dictionary and 'slander' and 'libel' seem to be synonyms that might be > more widely known. Maybe a native speaker could confirm this. 'slander' seems fine but 'libel' implies you are doing something illegal. 'slander' and 'slurs' need not be illegal. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Hello, On Thu 03 Jan 2019 at 10:19am -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 05:39:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: >> >> On #6 I was tempted to add "When a blog is removed, the committer should >> add a comment listing the posts that resulted in it being removed", but >> not sure if that's overloading it a bit too much. >> > Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed, the > committer should send a direct email message to the author of the > removed content explaining the reason for the removal." > > That keeps potentially loaded statements from being recorded in commit > message forever. Yes, let's avoid this. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Planet Debian revisions
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 02:47:00PM +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > Hi! > > Jonathan Carter: > > On 2019/01/03 00:26, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > Full text: https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian/ProposedChanges > > Looks good! I like it. > > One tiny thingy based on a remark: I've looked up 'slur' in the > dictionary and 'slander' and 'libel' seem to be synonyms that might be > more widely known. Maybe a native speaker could confirm this. > A slander or libel is something that attacks an individual's character, like falsely accusing someone of corruption. A slur, on the other hand, might attack someone's race, ethnicity, gender, etc. "Disparaging statement" might work better, as it would cover both. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
Re: Planet Debian revisions
On 15271 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed, the committer should send a direct email message to the author of the removed content explaining the reason for the removal." Ah please not. That keeps potentially loaded statements from being recorded in commit message forever. It also allows the author something perhaps more complete than a short sentence fragment in a commit message upon which to base a decision on how to proceed. And I sometimes remove blogs for them just going 5xx. A commit msg is fine. And who says a commi message is short? Write a novel, if you want. :) -- bye, Joerg
Re: Planet Debian revisions
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 05:39:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > > On #6 I was tempted to add "When a blog is removed, the committer should > add a comment listing the posts that resulted in it being removed", but > not sure if that's overloading it a bit too much. > Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed, the committer should send a direct email message to the author of the removed content explaining the reason for the removal." That keeps potentially loaded statements from being recorded in commit message forever. It also allows the author something perhaps more complete than a short sentence fragment in a commit message upon which to base a decision on how to proceed. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Hi! Jonathan Carter: > On 2019/01/03 00:26, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Full text: https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian/ProposedChanges Looks good! I like it. One tiny thingy based on a remark: I've looked up 'slur' in the dictionary and 'slander' and 'libel' seem to be synonyms that might be more widely known. Maybe a native speaker could confirm this. Cheers! Ulrike
Re: Planet Debian revisions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 1/3/19 2:21 AM, Jonathan Carter wrote: > Where would be the best place to reach planet syndicators to notify > them about the update, d-d-a? Chances are people posting on Planet also read Planet :P But yeah, d-d-a is also a good idea. - -- ,''`. : :' : Louis-Philippe Véronneau `. `'` po...@debian.org / veronneau.org `- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEZ39U8fqGga2OwLzmeurE7GqqCpcFAlwtuw8ACgkQeurE7Gqq CpepuA/9ELYQsx0bD6L9N2c8jNr9jB+JKhYPads8Q8jtCUjk0Hmv0wf+FhZ34HVR Szj6W3OVbMagNL0e78pS73q1psePi52Q7tbExOII/p3R8EBHO+wECOhYwGkDiUT9 ttBcW+Y1K5sQoHnGRlDZ89gLUbNIY2HUyXxUn8SIROFuB34qmyIkUhfLs7VSU91R MpA4iuRpSfaE2+VL+cOgAgqxqnvo1+UPKel1gZqua2JSQpGBfyq/OnAKvAVLIvEt HpZ/V9+dF7pWE5kUxo9BS3NMA83vm2QMR0D0qeWMPu+6Z5stYhk/fzhvhIxyJOQ5 OdRjVxWE6GS9FylzuPezW0Qi4yEDAXTJItFTJB/y326FC48YbUlko6XHnOCO1TqV dSDLe3dPdTswxFP8wMMTt/WCFEZZzmz/ZD46p3p/QhibYWd39x4VTP8qYnwS4Ovc R/s2AFj9ASbmf1d8judD+7Baa5b1bZ/oZSfT1SSBilq/GoYRmLfIAbCimyRsXf7A GXEN6Q7ubJOh3/MCWNS6bUYAzx4GQby6E82QQg/+ORu/VoA5zCOVHwXDYxZj4oZQ E2LCRNUEQWsVNP9r2lKxvcu+hKJrfjGX+2Bh7cNSCLapyst+in7VkzHArl4RwY2t 5ldBbSUOK26WucrCvgKegklErDt6BT25yKSeT+oy7hvXY2wJL/o= =8FAe -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Planet Debian revisions
On 2019/01/03 02:23, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > I like these changes. Thanks for doing this. Thanks, the changes are now live: https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian Where would be the best place to reach planet syndicators to notify them about the update, d-d-a? -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
Re: Planet Debian revisions
> > I've added everyone's suggestions because I think they were good, here's > > the updated section on a subpage: > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian/ProposedChanges > > > > If I get two +1's I'll go ahead and change it. > > +1 > > Cheers, Phil. > > P.S. with the caveat that I'd prefer "contact" to "reach out to", > but that's probably just me showing my age, or some such. I like these changes. Thanks for doing this. Later, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill https://mako.cc/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Le Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 06:54:25PM +0100, Enrico Zini a écrit : > On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 05:39:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > > > 4. Avoid posting personal fights or insults. Planet Debian is not an > > appropriate medium for this. > > If I'm still on time, I'd suggest: "personal fights, insults, or slurs", > as I'm not sure how much we can give for granted that everyone > understands that using slurs counts as insulting. Hi Enrico, on my side, I have no idea what a "slur" is: this word is new to me and I would need a dictionary to understand that rule. I would like to suggest to keep a simple English vocabulary when writing rules. Have a nice day ! -- Charles
Re: Planet Debian revisions
On 2019/01/03 00:26, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> 6. Posts that are syndicated on Planet Debian that doesn't conform >> to our community standards may result in removal of a post or even an >> entire blog. In such a case, please reach out to the Planet >> administrators before re-adding your blog yourself. >> """ > > Only that one. We don't remove single posts. Its a blog in or out. > >> On #6 I was tempted to add "When a blog is removed, the committer >> should add a comment listing the posts that resulted in it being >> removed", but not sure if that's overloading it a bit too much. > > There are commit messages... Also, if you just comment it out, leave a > comment line right above it, shouldnt be hard. > But then, usually there is the policy to modify YOUR OWN (see "How do I > add..."), and then a "if you advocate, blabla, you may add theirs". > So it shouldnt be a common action for many to remove others. Updated point 6 based you your and Phil's last feedback: """ Posts that are syndicated on Planet Debian that violate our community standards may result in removal of the feed. When a feed is removed, the committer must state the reason for removal, either in a commit message or in the edited file. If unsure, please contact the planet administrators instead of re-adding a feed yourself. """ Full text: https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian/ProposedChanges -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
Re: Planet Debian revisions
On 15270 March 1977, Jonathan Carter wrote: Dear Planet administrators and debian-project Based on the very short amount of discussion we've had so far, I'd like to make the following changes to https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian Yah, followed that, didn't see reason to add more to it. :) """ 4. Avoid posting personal fights or insults. Planet Debian is not an appropriate medium for this. 5. Debian's community standards fully apply to Planet Debian, that includes following [[https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct|Debian's Code of Conduct]]. 6. Posts that are syndicated on Planet Debian that doesn't conform to our community standards may result in removal of a post or even an entire blog. In such a case, please reach out to the Planet administrators before re-adding your blog yourself. """ Only that one. We don't remove single posts. Its a blog in or out. On #6 I was tempted to add "When a blog is removed, the committer should add a comment listing the posts that resulted in it being removed", but not sure if that's overloading it a bit too much. There are commit messages... Also, if you just comment it out, leave a comment line right above it, shouldnt be hard. But then, usually there is the policy to modify YOUR OWN (see "How do I add..."), and then a "if you advocate, blabla, you may add theirs". So it shouldnt be a common action for many to remove others. -- bye, Joerg
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Jonathan Carter writes: > On 2019/01/02 19:54, Enrico Zini wrote: >> If I'm still on time, I'd suggest: "personal fights, insults, or slurs", >> as I'm not sure how much we can give for granted that everyone >> understands that using slurs counts as insulting. > > IMHO we're going to have to revisit these rules a few times to get it > right, so even after this round of edits I think we should be open to > suggestions and possibly cutting some cruft too so that it's easier to > read. But for now I think these initial additions will help to address > some of the most pressing problems. > > I've added everyone's suggestions because I think they were good, here's > the updated section on a subpage: > > https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian/ProposedChanges > > If I get two +1's I'll go ahead and change it. +1 Cheers, Phil. P.S. with the caveat that I'd prefer "contact" to "reach out to", but that's probably just me showing my age, or some such. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Planet Debian revisions
On 2019/01/02 19:54, Enrico Zini wrote: > If I'm still on time, I'd suggest: "personal fights, insults, or slurs", > as I'm not sure how much we can give for granted that everyone > understands that using slurs counts as insulting. IMHO we're going to have to revisit these rules a few times to get it right, so even after this round of edits I think we should be open to suggestions and possibly cutting some cruft too so that it's easier to read. But for now I think these initial additions will help to address some of the most pressing problems. I've added everyone's suggestions because I think they were good, here's the updated section on a subpage: https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian/ProposedChanges If I get two +1's I'll go ahead and change it. -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
Re: Planet Debian revisions
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 05:39:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > 4. Avoid posting personal fights or insults. Planet Debian is not an > appropriate medium for this. If I'm still on time, I'd suggest: "personal fights, insults, or slurs", as I'm not sure how much we can give for granted that everyone understands that using slurs counts as insulting. Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Thank you for doing this. On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 05:39:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: 5. Debian's community standards fully apply to Planet Debian, that includes following [[https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct|Debian's Code of Conduct]]. I think this should be point #1. It's the most important point, IMHO. 6. Posts that are syndicated on Planet Debian that doesn't conform to our community standards may result in removal of a post or even an entire blog. In such a case, please reach out to the Planet administrators before re-adding your blog yourself. I think technically individual posts cannot be removed, just entire blogs. Editing #6 accordingly would also make it shorter and easier to read. On #6 I was tempted to add "When a blog is removed, the committer should add a comment listing the posts that resulted in it being removed", but not sure if that's overloading it a bit too much. I'm not sure that would necessarily be helpful. The URI (being externally managed) would not be guaranteed to continue to serve the same content at a later date. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
Re: Planet Debian revisions
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 03:54:00PM +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: >Jonathan Carter: >> Dear Planet administrators and debian-project >> >> Based on the very short amount of discussion we've had so far, I'd like >> to make the following changes to https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian >> >> I've scaled the wording down from what I originally suggested on >> debian-project so that it doesn't include the term "smear campaign. > >Thanks for working on this! > >> Under the section "What Can I Post On Planet", I would like to add the >> following points: >> >> """ >> 4. Avoid posting personal fights or insults. Planet Debian is not an >> appropriate medium for this. > >> 5. Debian's community standards fully apply to Planet Debian, that >> includes following [[https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct|Debian's >> Code of Conduct]]. >> >> 6. Posts that are syndicated on Planet Debian that doesn't conform to > >"that don't" instead of "that doesn't" +1 >> our community standards may result in removal of a post or even an >> entire blog. In such a case, please reach out to the Planet > >"entire feed" ? +1 >"In this case" instead of "In such a case" ? > >> administrators before re-adding your blog yourself. > >"before" or "instead" ? "instead" is better, I think. >> """ > >It all sounds good. Yup! >> On #6 I was tempted to add "When a blog is removed, the committer should >> add a comment listing the posts that resulted in it being removed", but >> not sure if that's overloading it a bit too much. > >I think this is useful. Maybe "When a blog is removed, the committer >must (or should?) state a reason for the removal. If unsure, please >reach out to the Planet administrators." Sounds good to me. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Jonathan Carter: > Dear Planet administrators and debian-project > > Based on the very short amount of discussion we've had so far, I'd like > to make the following changes to https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian > > I've scaled the wording down from what I originally suggested on > debian-project so that it doesn't include the term "smear campaign. > > Under the section "What Can I Post On Planet", I would like to add the > following points: > > """ > 4. Avoid posting personal fights or insults. Planet Debian is not an > appropriate medium for this. > > 5. Debian's community standards fully apply to Planet Debian, that > includes following [[https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct|Debian's > Code of Conduct]]. > > 6. Posts that are syndicated on Planet Debian that doesn't conform to > our community standards may result in removal of a post or even an > entire blog. In such a case, please reach out to the Planet > administrators before re-adding your blog yourself. > """ > > On #6 I was tempted to add "When a blog is removed, the committer should > add a comment listing the posts that resulted in it being removed", but > not sure if that's overloading it a bit too much. > > Any thoughts? > > I'll go ahead and add it if there are no objections. > > -Jonathan > FWIW (as a random Debian Contributor), I would be glad to see that amendment. :) Thanks for making Debian a nicer place to work. :) Thanks, ~Niels
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Hi Jonathan, Jonathan Carter: > Dear Planet administrators and debian-project > > Based on the very short amount of discussion we've had so far, I'd like > to make the following changes to https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian > > I've scaled the wording down from what I originally suggested on > debian-project so that it doesn't include the term "smear campaign. Thanks for working on this! > Under the section "What Can I Post On Planet", I would like to add the > following points: > > """ > 4. Avoid posting personal fights or insults. Planet Debian is not an > appropriate medium for this. > 5. Debian's community standards fully apply to Planet Debian, that > includes following [[https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct|Debian's > Code of Conduct]]. > > 6. Posts that are syndicated on Planet Debian that doesn't conform to "that don't" instead of "that doesn't" > our community standards may result in removal of a post or even an > entire blog. In such a case, please reach out to the Planet "entire feed" ? "In this case" instead of "In such a case" ? > administrators before re-adding your blog yourself. "before" or "instead" ? > """ It all sounds good. > On #6 I was tempted to add "When a blog is removed, the committer should > add a comment listing the posts that resulted in it being removed", but > not sure if that's overloading it a bit too much. I think this is useful. Maybe "When a blog is removed, the committer must (or should?) state a reason for the removal. If unsure, please reach out to the Planet administrators." Cheers! u.
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Dear Planet administrators and debian-project Based on the very short amount of discussion we've had so far, I'd like to make the following changes to https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian I've scaled the wording down from what I originally suggested on debian-project so that it doesn't include the term "smear campaign. Under the section "What Can I Post On Planet", I would like to add the following points: """ 4. Avoid posting personal fights or insults. Planet Debian is not an appropriate medium for this. 5. Debian's community standards fully apply to Planet Debian, that includes following [[https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct|Debian's Code of Conduct]]. 6. Posts that are syndicated on Planet Debian that doesn't conform to our community standards may result in removal of a post or even an entire blog. In such a case, please reach out to the Planet administrators before re-adding your blog yourself. """ On #6 I was tempted to add "When a blog is removed, the committer should add a comment listing the posts that resulted in it being removed", but not sure if that's overloading it a bit too much. Any thoughts? I'll go ahead and add it if there are no objections. -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Hi Jonathan, and Happy New Year! On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 10:38:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: >On 2019/01/01 22:22, Wouter Verhelst wrote: ... >> (for clarity, that was part of the original GR that validated the code >> of conduct) >> >> I don't think it's a stretch (at all!) to claim that Planet Debian falls >> under the "other modes of communication" bit there. > >Yes absolutely, I didn't mean to imply anything of the contrary. I just >brought it up because I think it would be a good idea to link to the CoC >from the PlanetDebian wiki page. Absolutely. Make it so! >>> I think what I miss a bit in the Planet rules is the "Be respectful" >>> part and the "Be careful in the words that you choose. Be kind to >>> others. Do not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and >>> other exclusionary behavior aren't acceptable." Making it clear that you >>> cannot always agree, but that personal attacks are unacceptable. >> >> I think the code of conduct states those things too (although in other >> formulations), and just updating the Planet rules to clarify that the >> code of conduct applies should be enough? > >I think it's part of it. > >I really do think it's also worth while to explicitly have a short part >stating what the planet is not appropriate for, stating that it's not >appropriate to use the planet to republish personal arguments or smear >campaigns. Sure, that would also be against the CoC, but it will make it >much more easier to remove posts that do things like that rather than >having to rely on an interpretation of the CoC every time that matter >comes up. Sounds reaonable, yes. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "When C++ is your hammer, everything looks like a thumb." -- Steven M. Haflich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Planet Debian revisions
On 2019/01/01 22:22, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >>> I think it's important to be upfront that if an outside contributor >>> wants to republish content on Planet Debian, that they be aware that we >>> have certain community standards and that we expect them to follow it. >>> Currently the planet wiki page doesn't mention the CoC rules at all, >>> which a casual contributor might not even be aware of. >> >> For reference, this is the Debian CoC: >> https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct > > Which claims: > > The Debian Project, the producers of the Debian system, have adopted a code > of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels and other > modes > of communication within the project. > > (for clarity, that was part of the original GR that validated the code > of conduct) > > I don't think it's a stretch (at all!) to claim that Planet Debian falls > under the "other modes of communication" bit there. Yes absolutely, I didn't mean to imply anything of the contrary. I just brought it up because I think it would be a good idea to link to the CoC from the PlanetDebian wiki page. >> I think what I miss a bit in the Planet rules is the "Be respectful" >> part and the "Be careful in the words that you choose. Be kind to >> others. Do not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and >> other exclusionary behavior aren't acceptable." Making it clear that you >> cannot always agree, but that personal attacks are unacceptable. > > I think the code of conduct states those things too (although in other > formulations), and just updating the Planet rules to clarify that the > code of conduct applies should be enough? I think it's part of it. I really do think it's also worth while to explicitly have a short part stating what the planet is not appropriate for, stating that it's not appropriate to use the planet to republish personal arguments or smear campaigns. Sure, that would also be against the CoC, but it will make it much more easier to remove posts that do things like that rather than having to rely on an interpretation of the CoC every time that matter comes up. -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
Re: Planet Debian revisions
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 02:37:00PM +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > Hi! > > Jonathan Carter: > > > I think that it might be beneficial to revisit the rules of Planet > > Debian and fortify it a bit. > > Thanks for this initiative. > > > The Planet's rules aren't that bad, it's quite liberal; any debian > > contributor can post and the rules even encourages political posts. > > > > If you haven't read it in a while, here it is: > > https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian > > > > I think it's important to be upfront that if an outside contributor > > wants to republish content on Planet Debian, that they be aware that we > > have certain community standards and that we expect them to follow it. > > Currently the planet wiki page doesn't mention the CoC rules at all, > > which a casual contributor might not even be aware of. > > For reference, this is the Debian CoC: > https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct Which claims: The Debian Project, the producers of the Debian system, have adopted a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels and other modes of communication within the project. (for clarity, that was part of the original GR that validated the code of conduct) I don't think it's a stretch (at all!) to claim that Planet Debian falls under the "other modes of communication" bit there. > At Tails we have a CoC that applies to all spaces in which we interact > with each other, be they physical, mailing lists, or other tools we use. So does Debian, actually (at least in my interpretation, which I don't think is unreasonable). [...] > > I also think that the paragraph about "not annoy people" should be > > completely overworked. First, even following its intentions, it's way > > too vague. Secondly, annoying the right people is an incredibly > > important part of being human, and I think it's morally wrong of us to > > ask people not to annoy anyone whatsoever. > > I think what I miss a bit in the Planet rules is the "Be respectful" > part and the "Be careful in the words that you choose. Be kind to > others. Do not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and > other exclusionary behavior aren't acceptable." Making it clear that you > cannot always agree, but that personal attacks are unacceptable. I think the code of conduct states those things too (although in other formulations), and just updating the Planet rules to clarify that the code of conduct applies should be enough? -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Re: Planet Debian revisions
Hi! Jonathan Carter: > I think that it might be beneficial to revisit the rules of Planet > Debian and fortify it a bit. Thanks for this initiative. > The Planet's rules aren't that bad, it's quite liberal; any debian > contributor can post and the rules even encourages political posts. > > If you haven't read it in a while, here it is: > https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian > > I think it's important to be upfront that if an outside contributor > wants to republish content on Planet Debian, that they be aware that we > have certain community standards and that we expect them to follow it. > Currently the planet wiki page doesn't mention the CoC rules at all, > which a casual contributor might not even be aware of. For reference, this is the Debian CoC: https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct At Tails we have a CoC that applies to all spaces in which we interact with each other, be they physical, mailing lists, or other tools we use. I like quite a lot because it "isn't an exhaustive list of things that you can't do. Rather, take it in the spirit in which it's intended — a guide to make it easier to enrich all of us and the technical communities in which we participate." (https://tails.boum.org/contribute/working_together/code_of_conduct/) I would appreciate seeing something going along those lines for any space related to Debian, ie. also planet.d.o.. " part. > I also think that the paragraph about "not annoy people" should be > completely overworked. First, even following its intentions, it's way > too vague. Secondly, annoying the right people is an incredibly > important part of being human, and I think it's morally wrong of us to > ask people not to annoy anyone whatsoever. I think what I miss a bit in the Planet rules is the "Be respectful" part and the "Be careful in the words that you choose. Be kind to others. Do not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and other exclusionary behavior aren't acceptable." Making it clear that you cannot always agree, but that personal attacks are unacceptable. > I also think that the wiki page should explicitly mention that planet > debian is not the platform to stage personal spats on. If someone wants > to engage in a public fight, they should do that on another platform. Ack. > I also think it may be useful to include some examples of what might get > a post or an entire feed removed. Maybe what is in the Tails part about "Be careful about the words that you choose" can help with this. > Well, those are some initial thoughts for now, if you made it this far, > thanks for reading :) Thanks again for bringing this up! Cheers! u.
Planet Debian revisions
Hi Recently some unhappiness (sorry for the euphemism) was caused by posts on Planet Debian, which resulted in a whole number of public and private discussions (yes, that too is a euphemism). I think that it might be beneficial to revisit the rules of Planet Debian and fortify it a bit. The Planet's rules aren't that bad, it's quite liberal; any debian contributor can post and the rules even encourages political posts. If you haven't read it in a while, here it is: https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian I think it's important to be upfront that if an outside contributor wants to republish content on Planet Debian, that they be aware that we have certain community standards and that we expect them to follow it. Currently the planet wiki page doesn't mention the CoC rules at all, which a casual contributor might not even be aware of. I also think that the paragraph about "not annoy people" should be completely overworked. First, even following its intentions, it's way too vague. Secondly, annoying the right people is an incredibly important part of being human, and I think it's morally wrong of us to ask people not to annoy anyone whatsoever. I also think that the wiki page should explicitly mention that planet debian is not the platform to stage personal spats on. If someone wants to engage in a public fight, they should do that on another platform. I also think it may be useful to include some examples of what might get a post or an entire feed removed. Well, those are some initial thoughts for now, if you made it this far, thanks for reading :) -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
