Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
On 2007.07.13 18:12, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:34 +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote: > > Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, > now > > > would be the time. > > > > Really, I don't like the idea...the list has been calm for some > time > > now, the discussions were lengthy sometimes but not aggressive. > [snip stuff I mostly agree with] > -- > Chris Gianelloni > Release Engineering Strategic Lead > Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams > Games Developer/Soon to be former Council Member and glad/Foundation > Trustee > Gentoo Foundation > The original vision for the proctors failed because the council perceived that the proctors was going to be a a high profile, preemptive action project, mostly on the -dev mailing list. To be preemptive requires time to act - which is just not possible without moderation or some form of delay. To be high profile requires to be very public too, so there is actually a profile to see at all. Human nature dictates that individuals don't like the 'loss of face' associated with having their shortcomings pointed out in public, thus the most successful proctors work was carried out on a one to one basis, not preemtively and in a very low profile way. In my opinion, the project was successful in improving communications but not in the way it was originally envisioned by the council when the project was started. Oh - a final word on the proctors ... there is no need to be a member of any project to smooth out misunderstandings or help improve communications. A thick skin to avoid being upset when you try to help and its not required is an asset though. I don't like the proposed ML change, for several reasons. 1. As others have said, it will create a class structure within Gentoo, with non-dev contributors becoming second class citizens. At the same time, the barrier to becoming a develper will be increased. 2. Something that can be done by *anybody* (list moderation) will be done by *nobody* - You only need look around at your workplace to see that. Worse still, if the proposed moderation actually happens, it will be based on nepotism. I say that because people will only look at posts they are likely to be interested in. 3. Gentoo is a living organism ... users (including devs) contribute what they can when they can. As has already been discussed, organisations go through several major structural changes as they grow and its possible gentoo is due one now. Keeping in mind those three points I propose that :- a) -core is unchanged b) -dev has its scope narrowed to gentoo wide technical issues only c) -per herd lists are used for traffic that does not concern almost everyone. This reducing the scope of of -dev reduces the noise on the list as presently, even the on topic posts are noise to most devs. The above restructuring allows room for gentoo to grow, without creating any second class citizens and reduces the perceived noise on - dev at the same time. Should the council want to enable moderation, they need to appoint a group to do it *everyone* simply won't work. Finding members might be difficult as the original ML control group has just been disbanded. Before the council vote on this latest idea, I suggest they learn from the open source movement and look at other distros that have survived to become bigger (head count) than Gantoo and see what they did. There is no need to reinvent the wheel or suffer from the 'not invented here' syndrome. Drawing on what other distros or large projects have done is the was OSS works. The worst thing the council can do is vote this measure as a parting gesture, a process that cannot be completed before the existing councils last meeting on 9th August. It needs proper research and consideration so is best left to the incoming council since they will have to live with the decision. Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySegoon) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:11:19 Duncan wrote: > Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > > excerpted below, on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:01:53 -0600: > > Why don't we create the gentoo-project mailing > > list, and, you know, actually wait a bit to see how that actually goes. > > Then we can talk about how best to handle -dev. One shit at a time, > > people. > > +1 > > It should also be noted that it's council election time, and I don't > believe a change such as closing -dev to moderated write status is really > urgent enough to have the outgoing council handle. Let the folks running > for council now make their positions part of their platforms, and after - > project is up and running for a couple months and the new council is in > place, /then/ let's see if moderating -dev remains a burning enough issue > to be voted on. I agree with you that this should be pulled over the election. That will also allow some time to see how the -project list works out. Paul -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
"Thomas Tuttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:41:51 -0400: > On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:54:44 -0400, "Daniel Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: >> I do like the "gentoo-politics" idea that came up a few weeks ago, >> which was to move politics off gentoo-dev and to another list, but I'd >> view it from another perspective (and avoid the words 'politics'): make >> gentoo-dev for development topics only, and have another list for the >> rest. But, I suspect we'd come back to the same problem on both lists, >> where some people are too keen to talk and deviate too far away from >> technical discussion. > > On IRC, when a conversation wanders offtopic, one of the ops just nudges > the participants and says "hey, you should move your conversation to > #gentoo-foo" (or "##foo" or whatever). Wouldn't it be easy enough for > someone to do that here? It'd be pretty easy to specify what's on- and > off-topic for each list, and it would be friendlier than moderation, > just like it's friendlier for IRC ops to ask you nicely to switch > channels than to simply kick you out. That's what I'm hoping/praying/fingering-the-rosary will happen when -project gets off the ground (and we now have a declaration of intent from infra, and still no direct opposition to /just/ adding the list, that I've seen). The frustration I've had and I expect others have had as well, is that currently there's no really appropriate place to push folks to. When project gets up and running, that'll change, and I'm REALLY hoping there'll be overwhelming buy-in from everyone into /doing/ that nudging. I know I'd not have an objection if told a post of mine belonged there, particularly if it was obvious anyone else, devs or not, would get the same treatment for a similar post. Just now, there's nowhere to go, so I'd consider an objection legitimate -- and have in fact made a couple such objections in the past. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:22:09AM +0200, Torsten Veller wrote: > What will you do when users start sending mail from dev addresses? Ban the sender's address :-] cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org forum-mods (at) gentoo.org #gentoo-forums (freenode) pgp8kotTRdogk.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:02:07 +0100 > Peter Weller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> The moderators should get the final word, end of. > > That would only work if Gentoo could find decent moderator Sorry I know I said "ignore thread" but really: just cos the forum mods banned you it really doesn't make them "indecent" moderators.. It just means you need to change your behaviour. Think about it. > who are > prepared to put lots of effort into work that is, let's face it, > entirely unnecessary and serving no point beyond letting a few people > able to be seen to be 'doing something'. > Yes dear. _yawn_ And now Ignore Thread really _is_ on. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> Just because developers develop because they want to doesn't mean >> they dont want to be part of a community, if that wasn't the case >> then none of the current developers would have originally been part >> of the userbase to begin with. > > What relevance does this have to anything I said? I wasn't addressing > anything about being part of communities; I was addressing the > motivation of volunteers contributing to Gentoo. > Well maybe you should bear in mind that you are talking in front of the whole community. Reply-To Munging? irrelevant ofc. Amateurs.. Sorry amne, but they are.. How many of them are even over 30, as a percentage? /ignore Thread is now on.. honestly guys, grow up. Flames off-list please. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 23:30 +0100, George Prowse wrote: >> This is going to crash and burn but wouldn't it be an ideal job >> description for the proctors? Instead of telling people off they could >> just stop people posting. That way you dont even get to know that they >> are even there. > > Seeing as how our original ideas for how the proctors would work pretty > much fell exactly in line with this, I would say "yes" to your question. > So why did you shaft them? > Of course, I now tend to agree that having a larger pool of mods for > gentoo-dev is probably better. It allows any developer to participate, > reducing the "good ol' boy" argument, since participation is open to all > developers. > OFC you do! -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Torsten Veller wrote: * Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. What will you do when users start sending mail from dev addresses? There's nothing to prevent that now. That's part of the reason that devs are "encouraged" to sign their messages to the mailing lists. -- Andrew Gaffney http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Catalyst/Installer + x86 release coordinator -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
* Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only > devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. What will you do when users start sending mail from dev addresses? Thanks, Torsten -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 13:34 +0100, Steve Long wrote: > Are you really claiming that Gentoo could possibly function as an > organisation without the users? Who ever said that? Please don't read your own whatever into what is being said. I know I, for one, don't really care what your opinion is on what Donnie said, and would rather focus on what he actually said. Gentoo developers work on Gentoo because they get something out of it. Period. Some developers do it solely out of the joy they feel by helping users. Some developers do it solely to improve Gentoo for their own use. Both of these developers are just as "selfish" in that they work on Gentoo because of what it bring to them. Remember that we're not paid. This means that everyone here has some motivation, besides money, that keeps us here. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Mike Doty wrote: All- We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway) but that's a path to cross later. We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be the time. --taco As a user rather than a dev I waited to respond to this until I saw some of the discussion, since I'm new to Gentoo culture. Most opinion seems to have been extremely negative, along the lines of "This will kill Gentoo because it will alienate the users", together with some very defensive responses from supporters, and a few who don't seem to care at all. I was also originally quite negative about it, but rereading the statement I have come to see some merits in the general idea. Developers (who are required to read the list and for whose continued collaboration and productivity it exists) should have the ability to banish non-developers who abuse their subscriptions to make technical discussions personal. This is only reasonable. However, moderating this list will just place an obstacle in the path of casual user participation and foster a sense of entitlement among the more resentful developers (those would be the ones making claims that Gentoo is not about what devs can do for the users, but merely about everyone serving their own interests). So a better solution would be to adopt the proposal for a developer-moderated blacklist. However, if such powers are expected to be exercised routinely, simply issuing it carte blanche would be ignoring a much larger issue having to do with the quality of the developer community (not to be confused with the larger developer-user community) itself. A good example of a list which follows this sort of policy, and which I also read (skim), is the linux-kernel mailing list, which I consider to be perhaps the optimal open-source developer's list. It has high volume, which people here (and there) sometimes dislike, but that's because they track contributions on the list rather than through Bugzilla, so ignore that aspect. The point is that each and every conversation is on-topic, competent, technical, and very patiently conducted. Even when one developer makes strong (sometimes very strong) remarks it is, as far as I have observed, never met in kind. They bury their egos for the sake of the project, because they are all good at what they do, respected for it, and get enough gratification from their work that they don't need to seek cheap thrills through mailing-list flamewars (indeed, that would detract from their job satisfaction). Stupid, inflammatory, and provocative letters are rarely answered and never develop into flamewars, because no one dignifies them with responses. On very rare occasions I have seen a frivolous conversation (one about some penguin game comes to mind), which reached a surprising saturation before one of the lead developers threatened excommunication to the participants. This is the ONLY time I have ever seen the blacklist powers explicitly exercised, and it completely ended the idiocy. Power exercised with extreme caution will hit twice as hard when it finally comes, because they'll know you mean it. I mention this because it is a pretty high standard, but is in my opinion just about the least you can really expect of a mailing list for a volunteer software development project. If this list degenerates into regular flamewars, it is not the fault of the users; there will always be idiots, but hopefully these people are too self-centered to think of contributing to something like Gentoo. Flamewars are the fault of the developers who participate in them, though no one will like to hear me say this. It's a developer's list and the flamewars wouldn't go anywhere if only a small cabal of lusers stoked them. And from what I've said above, having observed it in the LKML, if developers are doing this it's because they don't respect their work enough, in which case, why do they continue developing? But I've noticed three at least quitting since this discussion started, so maybe they don't. So before you go and moderate the list in any form, think about why at least a few of your number are so immature. Maybe I'm wrong, and they do like their work, but at the very least you should start by making a serious attempt to reform the mailing list culture by pure social pressure before actually implementing a moderation scheme. After all, it's true that users are granted access to this list as a privilege: the privilege of putting in their two cents and thereby contributing to a project that takes itself as seriously as the users apparently take it. The only
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:49:23 +0200, "Jakub Moc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > __ __ _ > |__ / _ \| \/ |/ ___| | > / / | | | |\/| | | _| | > / /| |_| | | | | |_| |_| > /\___/|_| |_|\(_) > > Anyone tell me how can I get rid of this junk in my mailbox? Where's the > damned -announce list? Please, stop feeding this kind of debates down > everyone's throat. Hmm. /me doesn't know any MUA's with a "kill thread" option off the top of his head (especially one that would remember the Message-ID's so it could kill new messages from the same thread) but in mutt you could hit ^D to delete the entire thread, IIRC. --Thomas Tuttle -- Thomas Tuttle - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ttuttle.net/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
__ __ _ |__ / _ \| \/ |/ ___| | / / | | | |\/| | | _| | / /| |_| | | | | |_| |_| /\___/|_| |_|\(_) Anyone tell me how can I get rid of this junk in my mailbox? Where's the damned -announce list? Please, stop feeding this kind of debates down everyone's throat. :X -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:34:31 +0100 Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It also happens that bugs are reported, and patches provided, by > users. Not to mention documentation written, support provided on irc > and in forums, which are the envy of every OS out there. Oh and the > small matter of defending Gentoo against detractors, the most telling > of which are those who criticise elitist ``devs''. > > Are you really claiming that Gentoo could possibly function as an > organisation without the users? And why do they contribute patches etc? Because it bugs them that something is broken. Or maybe because it gives them pleasure to help others. They're doing it for themselves too. In an open-source, volunteer world, everyone contributes because it _in some way_ benefits them to do so. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Hello Steve! On Monday, 16. July 2007 18:17:00 Steve Long wrote: > Sure, but since you're only doing exactly what you want, when you want, > why do you guys keep bleating about how much work you have, and what > extravagant demands us lusers make on you? Now, now. You're a nice guy on IRC so what is this nonsense about? :-) Yes, every single Gentoo dev is here for a reason. Some because they want to improve the stuff they use themselves, some want to be able to help users better (yes, such people exist! ;-) ) and some, like myself, simply have fun working on stuff they use *and* helping people by doing that. (And then there are some idealistic motives but let's keep those aside for now.) > And please don't tell me you're not proud of being a Gentoo dev, Yes, I admit it, I am because this is the finest Linux distribution I could find and because there are a lot of nice people around. Yes, some Gentoo devs behave like morons some of the time, like myself again ;), but then, it's the same among the user base so I don't think this is something special between devs. This thread is now a dumpster for every complaint any given dev or user may have and overly complicated ideas are exchanged to solve problems which I simply don't see we're having. Yes, there's a lot of traffic here which will soon drop back to normal once people realised they have beaten this horse to death quite a few postings ago. Personally, I originally favoured the idea of making -dev r/o for anyone but Gentoo devs and have the latter moderate-in anyone else. Obviously, though, this meets with strong resistance by some users and devs so let's simply make this ominous -project mailinglist and see if/how it works. I don't think either solutions makes much sense because it complicates matters unnecessarily but if people really lack a minimum of discipline *and* can't ignore the few loudmouths then so be it. > and it doesn't help you personally in your careers. It doesn't help *me* in my career at all. :-) I'm not in this for money, personal gains or accelerating my career anyway, though. I'm in this for fun, for the people (be they devs or users, I don't really care) and in the hope that I might make the world at least a wee, tiny bit better by what I do and how I try to do it. > You're a bunch of selfish malcontents according to your definition. No, you're exaggerating. :-) Yes, the way some fellow devs stated it, was rather blunt but I'm sure they didn't mean it that way. Best regards, Wulf signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Andrew Gaffney wrote: > You misunderstand. I'm not saying that all non-devs can get bent and their > opinions be damned. I'm just saying that at the core, Gentoo is still the > same as it was "back in the day". Gentoo isn't a commercial distribution, > and nobody pays us, so we can do anything we want, whether the user > community at large likes it or not. We ultimately answer only to > ourselves. > Sure, but since you're only doing exactly what you want, when you want, why do you guys keep bleating about how much work you have, and what extravagant demands us lusers make on you? And please don't tell me you're not proud of being a Gentoo dev, and it doesn't help you personally in your careers. You're a bunch of selfish malcontents according to your definition. Some coders know that without users their code is worthless. NFC why anyone would want to be a ``dev'' like you outline. If you don't like it, ignore it. BTW I sincerely hope that isn't _all_ that motivates you, Mr Gaffney. Doing "anything [you] want, whether the user community at large likes it or not," is a recipe for disaster for _any_ software project. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Steve Long wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > >> Matthias Langer wrote: >> >>> no offense, but this is one of the worst proposals i've ever read on >>> this list; why? because, one of gentoo's major problems is that it is >>> becoming more and more a toy exclusively for its own developers. >>> >> Gentoo's always been exclusively for the developers. Nobody's paying us >> to do this. It just so happens that the things we want to do also >> benefit other people, and so they use them. >> >> > It also happens that bugs are reported, and patches provided, by users. Not > to mention documentation written, support provided on irc and in forums, > which are the envy of every OS out there. Oh and the small matter of > defending Gentoo against detractors, the most telling of which are those > who criticise elitist ``devs''. > > Are you really claiming that Gentoo could possibly function as an > organisation without the users? > No, Gentoo *the organisation/community* wouldn't be where it is today without its users, that is for sure. However, Gentoo devs - as individuals - don't owe to community anything. Quite the contrary, if I may say so myself. That being said, all devs are working on our beloved distro having the common interest in mind, just it gets harder and harder to keep your morale/motivation high while you are exposed to rants and flame wars like this. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Matthias Langer wrote: >> no offense, but this is one of the worst proposals i've ever read on >> this list; why? because, one of gentoo's major problems is that it is >> becoming more and more a toy exclusively for its own developers. > > Gentoo's always been exclusively for the developers. Nobody's paying us > to do this. It just so happens that the things we want to do also > benefit other people, and so they use them. > It also happens that bugs are reported, and patches provided, by users. Not to mention documentation written, support provided on irc and in forums, which are the envy of every OS out there. Oh and the small matter of defending Gentoo against detractors, the most telling of which are those who criticise elitist ``devs''. Are you really claiming that Gentoo could possibly function as an organisation without the users? steveL -- sick of this attitude (and waiting for the "oh but we're users too"; so be moderated like us then.) Here's an idea: close the dev m-l and have a dev forum instead. If you cannot maintain the level of civility we have to, how can you possibly claim to represent Gentoo to the level expected? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Kumba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:13:31 -0400: > @Council > As for the rest of thisthread..., mayhaps it would be wise for > Council and Infra to postpone the moderation idea for a few months? (let > 2007-2008 council handle the matter) As this really isn't the kind of > thing we should be pulling during a council/trustee switch out (just > look at the size of the thread). > > @Infra > In what may be appropriately considered a vain attempt to end this > thread, can we just go ahead and create -project, and give it a few > weeks to see what happens? Worry about -dev and moderation later on. ++ on both. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Duncan wrote: I like the "gentoo-project" (yes, that's better than politics) idea as well, and believe it /could/ solve the problem here, given a couple conditions are met. One, -project is not to be required reading for devs as -dev is. Devs (and others) can ignore it if they wish. Two, people be consistent about telling folks to go to -project when it goes OT, setting the followup-to/reply-to. Telling folks much of the current discussion doesn't belong in -dev doesn't help now, because there's nowhere to send them. Once there is, simple "no further replies here, this belongs on the gentoo-project list", no name calling, no further discussion, just that, if enough current regulars do it, should dramatically decrease the noise level here. Already since the idea was proposed, I've wished the other list was up and running, as there are posts I'd have posted there rather than here, this whole thread could have gone there (except one would hope it wouldn't be needed then), etc. I really think it can work... because I've seen it work on other groups and mailing lists before. It just has to be implemented. Then, if after a month or two it's not working, / then/ I'd say it's time to consider bringing in the big moderation guns. But I think it can and will work without those guns, provided we give it the chance and effort to make it so. Just a reminder, Bug #181368 is the bug I filed for the -project ML over a month ago. I just updated it with a suggestion that -project not be required subscription for new devs, just that new devs need to be informed of both its existence and purpose (this was left out of my original submission). Those interested may want to add themselves to the CC list to track any developments that happen there (assuming the fire doesn't spread). @Council As for the rest of thisthread..., mayhaps it would be wise for Council and Infra to postpone the moderation idea for a few months? (let 2007-2008 council handle the matter) As this really isn't the kind of thing we should be pulling during a council/trustee switch out (just look at the size of the thread). @Infra In what may be appropriately considered a vain attempt to end this thread, can we just go ahead and create -project, and give it a few weeks to see what happens? Worry about -dev and moderation later on. Cheers, --Kumba -- Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead "Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Christina Fullam wrote: > I suppose the problem is high-volume and excessive flaming/trolling/OT. > The proposed solution asks that every developer take an active role, > yes, so that could easily equal more work - but I have little doubts > that there are developers that will take an interest in doing it. > It's odd though, that several have remarked how the list has been improving recently, and the most off-topic distraction imo has been this entire thread, based on meetings which were not exactly carried out in a transparent manner. Instead, the list was simply told that this what "We" were going to do. It doesn't strike me as a good way to establish consensus nor as inspiring leadership. > However, all that aside, here is another way this change could be > implemented: > I am still unsure as to the need for the change. It hasn't been fully established that this change is the correct solution afaics. The long discussion that led to the establishment of the proctors came up with a markedly different consensus of the way forward. Now this is imposed (a week to comment before the motion is voted on.) > -core stays private. I really dont see the need to change IMO. Agreed. > -project (call it what you will) would be for the off topic, non > development emails that we so commonly see. this list would be optional > for all developers. > -dev (no preference for the name) would be for development discussion > for devs and non-devs alike. I can see that working if you implement some of the proposed technical fixes, eg so that an Off-Topic discussion can be directed to project. > everyone would all start out on a > whitelist. any developer could opt to move a dev or non-dev to the > moderated list (meaning their emails would be delayed allowing for > moderation or simple release after a given time period). The trouble I have with this is that a distinction is drawn between the two groups, and one group (with a history of disdain to the other, as well as of flaming) is given more power. Sounds like a social experiment waiting to happen. > The check and balance for this would be that if any developer was found > to be moderating someone unnecessarily, that developer themself would be > moved to the moderated list by devrel for a time period without any > access rights to change anything further themselves. Repeat offenders > would be reviewed by devrel for further action if needed. this list > would be required for all developers. > So the only course of appeal is to a subset of the minority group. I note that the appeal mechanism hasn't even been discussed, so I am unsure as to just how transparent it will be. Further if it's only devs who have any input, I don't have any confidence in it actually achieving the aims, ie a mailing list which is a good place for *all* to discuss development. As someone else pointed out, any of A, B, or C could squash a post agreeing with X, Y or Z, no doubt feeling justified. I don't believe that overworked devs are going to be that sympathetic to appeals, and it seems like a bureaucratic nightmare. To say that people don't identify with their peers is disingenous, and given that they do, moderation by only one side seems to lack credibility. At least with the proctors, you were drawing from the existing Gentoo moderators, across all channels, so had some assurance of experience and competence, as well as the confidence of users. > I dont think for a moment that it is only non-devs causing this > excessive amount of email which often results in flaming/trolling. I do > agree that everyone should be bound by the same rules. > > Thoughts? > Only that if you want us all to be bound by the same rules, giving yet more power to _individual_ devs is not the way to do it. Here's an idea: ask the people who've got the experience to do the job. They may not always be sympathetic, but they are at least always professional. Also, since it has emerged from this discussion that there is no internal development list, maybe it would be good to set one up? I dunno, it may well be that drobbins et al intentionally made it so that all development discussion had to be done in conjunction with users, and not just to get their input. After all, a developer who cannot deal with non-devs still has some growth to achieve, imo, and Gentoo once had the aim of producing devs who were a credit to the team. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Will Briggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:54:10 +1000: > At the moment gentoo-dev is a "one big noisy room" forum. This is seen > as a "problem" > > Propose solutions have included: > > 1) The "Let's divide up the room" solution - (and so we have proposals > for gentoo-politics, gentoo-flamewar and other more "specialised" fora) > > [snip 2] > > The first doesn't work because it's well nigh impossible to enforce what > is on or off topic. Not really. Basically, once we have -politics or whatever, if anyone says it's OT for -dev, I don't see the point in arguing it further here, just post there. I've seen it work. With a bit of cooperation, once one respected regular (basically dev, for our purposes) says it goes to the other list/group/room/whatever, none of the regulars reply any further. The point is, once there's the other group/list to point to, it's not worth fighting over any longer, so even if a regular believes it actually /does/ belong in the "home" group/list, because there's another list/group and to maintain the common peace, that's it, it goes to the other list/group. Very very seldom is it actually worth breaking the common peace and fighting over, and when there /is/ discussion, when someone /does/ go beyond the norm, it's generally handled privately, person-to-person, because the cost of breaking rank publicly is chaos, which benefits no one of the regulars, only deliberate trolls. I'd really really like to have a go at it, to see if we /can/ make it work. I think we can, and /if/ we can, it's clearly a superior solution to forced moderation or other "forced" measures. Peer pressure /can/ work! -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:54:44 -0400: > I do like the "gentoo-politics" idea that came up a few weeks ago, which > was to move politics off gentoo-dev and to another list, but I'd view it > from another perspective (and avoid the words 'politics'): make > gentoo-dev for development topics only, and have another list for the > rest. But, I suspect we'd come back to the same problem on both lists, > where some people are too keen to talk and deviate too far away from > technical discussion. I like the "gentoo-project" (yes, that's better than politics) idea as well, and believe it /could/ solve the problem here, given a couple conditions are met. One, -project is not to be required reading for devs as -dev is. Devs (and others) can ignore it if they wish. Two, people be consistent about telling folks to go to -project when it goes OT, setting the followup-to/reply-to. Telling folks much of the current discussion doesn't belong in -dev doesn't help now, because there's nowhere to send them. Once there is, simple "no further replies here, this belongs on the gentoo-project list", no name calling, no further discussion, just that, if enough current regulars do it, should dramatically decrease the noise level here. Already since the idea was proposed, I've wished the other list was up and running, as there are posts I'd have posted there rather than here, this whole thread could have gone there (except one would hope it wouldn't be needed then), etc. I really think it can work... because I've seen it work on other groups and mailing lists before. It just has to be implemented. Then, if after a month or two it's not working, / then/ I'd say it's time to consider bringing in the big moderation guns. But I think it can and will work without those guns, provided we give it the chance and effort to make it so. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Christina Fullam wrote: > I suppose the problem is high-volume and excessive flaming/trolling/OT. > The proposed solution asks that every developer take an active role, > yes, so that could easily equal more work - but I have little doubts > that there are developers that will take an interest in doing it. > > However, all that aside, here is another way this change could be > implemented: > > -core stays private. I really dont see the need to change IMO. Agreed. > -project (call it what you will) would be for the off topic, non > development emails that we so commonly see. this list would be optional > for all developers. Agreed. Though "off-topic" could be replaced by "non-technical". > -dev (no preference for the name) would be for development discussion > for devs and non-devs alike. everyone would all start out on a > whitelist. any developer could opt to move a dev or non-dev to the > moderated list (meaning their emails would be delayed allowing for > moderation or simple release after a given time period). > > The check and balance for this would be that if any developer was found > to be moderating someone unnecessarily, that developer themself would be > moved to the moderated list by devrel for a time period without any > access rights to change anything further themselves. Repeat offenders > would be reviewed by devrel for further action if needed. this list > would be required for all developers. I'd prefer short-term banning to moderating. Once an individual is moderated, who is expected to review their mails? Who is reviewing the reviews? Is devrel really prepared, in resources and spirit, to evaluate every email sent by a moderated individual? If you feel you are, then you have my support. > I dont think for a moment that it is only non-devs causing this > excessive amount of email which often results in flaming/trolling. I do > agree that everyone should be bound by the same rules. Agreed. > Thoughts? -- dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed gentoo org it could suck an ancient virus from the sea 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Christina Fullam wrote: > > I think everyone is overlooking the part included previously: > > "An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev emails on a > > timeout, pick a number of hours, and then the email if not moderated > > would be released. (non-dev sends his email, time period expires > > and no one booted it, so the email rolls through)" > > > > This means that non-dev emails will still be sent to the list, just > > at a delay. This same delay can and will be exercised against > > developers if the developer demonstrates a justification for it. > > This also means that non-dev input will be accepted and viewed as it > > always has, the only change is that there is a delay. > > Then what, exactly, is the damned point? The problem this is > supposedly intended to solve is that -dev is too high-volume. This > solution requires people to actually put MORE effort into reading > -dev than they previously did. No one is going to actually do any > monitoring, so all you've done is made posts from non-dev accounts > time delayed. Why? Well, I orignally proposed this as a reaction to the "beejay incident", where a single mail caused complete havoc on this list. I think everyone would agree that that specific mail should never have been posted, as it's purpose was obvious to create trouble, and unfortunately some people couldn't resist to reply. I don't really like the idea (and only proposed it as an alternative to splitting the list into -dev and -dev-announce), but as long as people can't control themselves to ignore such posts (and I don't see that changing ever) we need a way to stop them to prevent further damage. Yes, that incident was an extreme exception, but I really don't want to see something like that ever happen again, and reactionary methods simply don't work IMHO. Just for completeness: My original proposal included delaying all posts and a special moderation group, only later the idea of separate policies for dev and non-dev mails was brought up. And to repeat: It was meant as an alternative to splitting the list into an informational and a discussion list (which is different than the -project idea). Marius PS: In case you're looking for a reference, this was on -core on June 7th. -- Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 10:25 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote: > William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > -core Internal Private List, Public R/O after period of time > > -core Internal Private List, Public R/O after period of time > > No. -core should not ever be public. It's not for development anyway. > -core contains things like personal issues the developers are having, > phone numbers, street addresses, stuff on conferences, meeting times, > job offers, etc. -- nothing that the entire world should have access to, > not even after time has gone by. I am neutral. -core can remain permanently private, or be opened up. Just seemed like a decent idea for full and complete transparency. Granted personal info/data, names, addresses, etc, ideally would need to be scrubbed. Probably just best to err on the side of cautiousness and keep private forever. If people have a problem with transparency. I am sorry, I don't know of many if any organizations that are 100% transparent. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > -core Internal Private List, Public R/O after period of time > -core Internal Private List, Public R/O after period of time No. -core should not ever be public. It's not for development anyway. -core contains things like personal issues the developers are having, phone numbers, street addresses, stuff on conferences, meeting times, job offers, etc. -- nothing that the entire world should have access to, not even after time has gone by. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 10:16 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > > so all > you've done is made posts from non-dev accounts time delayed. Why? Time delayed -dev doesn't make sense for anyone. IMHO this makes sense. -core Internal Private List, Public R/O after period of time -devInternal Developers List, Public R/O -projectExternal Project List, Public R/W No time delay, just difference of who can subscribe and talk on a given list. With that said, we could just leave -dev as is, create another list -internal, so the above would look like. -core Internal Private List, Public R/O after period of time -internal Internal Developers List, Public R/O -devExternal Development List, Public R/W That way -dev remains, we create -internal which all devs have to subscribe to. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Christina Fullam wrote: > I think everyone is overlooking the part included previously: > "An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev emails on a > timeout, pick a number of hours, and then the email if not moderated > would be released. (non-dev sends his email, time period expires and no > one booted it, so the email rolls through)" > > This means that non-dev emails will still be sent to the list, just at a > delay. This same delay can and will be exercised against developers > if the developer demonstrates a justification for it. > This also means that non-dev input will be accepted and viewed as it > always has, the only change is that there is a delay. Then what, exactly, is the damned point? The problem this is supposedly intended to solve is that -dev is too high-volume. This solution requires people to actually put MORE effort into reading -dev than they previously did. No one is going to actually do any monitoring, so all you've done is made posts from non-dev accounts time delayed. Why? -- dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed gentoo org it could suck an ancient virus from the sea 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:39 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> I just read an article about this [1]. To summarize, in a volunteer >> community, there needs to be more people enforcing the rules than >> people breaking them. A small group of proctors doesn't work -- we need >> everyone to join in to enforce our standards when someone violates them. > > This was actually one of my primary motivators for calling for the > disbanding of the proctors, as KingTaco and I had already had several > discussions on the new list and I felt having a larger pool of potential > "proctors" helped us out much more than the small group ever could do. Yeah, that's why you posted such a clear-cut rational analysis of the situation. Oh no wait you didn't; that's why as a Council member, you discussed it with the Proctors your team had initiated before "calling for their disbanding". Hmm. > Plus, the Council failed the proctors. I don't mean by disbanding them. > Hopefully, they'll see in time that it was for the best. We failed them > by not providing a better direction and clearer goals *before* we sent > them on their way. > No you provided a very clear direction as I recall. The need for moderation of non-devs as well as devs had been discussed fully on the list. The real failure was in slating them so publically, without prior discussion, the first time they ever asked everyone to back off for 24 hours. Really heavy and uncool of them, that was. And now instead of dealing with the fact that it's your devs who flame, you want to set devs up to moderate users. Good luck with cloud-cuckoo land. I guess it's almost as much fun as virtual reality. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Ned Ludd wrote: > On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 02:17 +0200, Robert Buchholz wrote: > >> I have to second the voices that a lot of user mails are productive. >> I did >> not do any stats, but I feel that most mails to -dev are currently by >> Gentoo >> devs anyway, so it will not seriously reduce the amount of mail in >> total. > > FYI we do have stats.. > > http://archives.gentoo.org/stats/gentoo-dev-per-month.xml > http://archives.gentoo.org/stats/gentoo-dev-per-year.xml > http://archives.gentoo.org/stats/ > None of which have anything to do with the matter at hand, ie the proportion of non-dev to dev emails. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
As another invisible AT, theres a couple of points I want to make about blanket blacklisting: 1. gentoo-dev has an outside image. The current, anyone-can-post, projects the image that the developers are happy to receive outside opinions that may be different to 'how things are done'. This is, mostly, a good thing. More ideas can only improve the technical quality of gentoo, even if those ideas are discarded. Moderating -dev will only reinforce the image of cliquiness within the developers. This is bad. 2. It will kill recruitment. This point has been made before, iirc. 3. A dilbert quote (paraphrase?) comes to mind - 'Something must be done. This is something, so we must do it' Personally, I agree with ttuttle's idea about being able to whitelist non-devs - a blanket blacklist is simply not the way to do it - people do not have to be developers to contribute to gentoo. I can also see the benefit of introducing -project and waiting to see what happens. When you introduce lots of changes to a software project at once, and something breaks, you do not know what broke it. It pays to introduce things one at a time and testing between. The same can be applied here. Simon Cooper -- Change the world - move a rock GnuPG Key: http://thecoop.me.uk/gpgkey.asc -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Vieri Di Paola schrieb: > I already contacted jokey (Markus) several months ago > via e-mail and we agreed that he would have setup > "proxy maintenance" for the shorewall ebuilds so that > I could contribute patches and learn from his > suggestions. We never got to do anything because we > simply stopped e-mailing. I think we can reinstatiate this, I was busy with another round of exams at uni though as they're finished since yesterday, we should get your ebuilds in ;) Though we should continue this off this list ;) Greetz -Jokey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:12:27 -0700 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am so waiting for my term to end on the Council so I can procmail > this list to /dev/null and never have to deal with this sort of crap > again. Sure, I'll miss some important information, but the signal to > noise is so high (like this email and most of the emails proceeding > it) that it is damn near impossible to get any decent technical > discussions going on. Have you ever considered that the reason there's so much non-technical discussion is because that's what's dominating the Council agenda? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:34 +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote: > Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now > > would be the time. > > Really, I don't like the idea...the list has been calm for some time > now, the discussions were lengthy sometimes but not aggressive. So because there isn't a problem *right now* you'd rather do nothing? Isn't that the same kind of thinking that constantly gets Gentoo into these sorts of problems in the first place? Rather than pull and ostrich and put our head in the sand every time something happens in Gentoo land, I would much rather see us try to actually do something to prevent it/resolve it. We're volunteers. Nobody expects us to be perfect, and if anyone does expect that, they should prepare to be constantly disappointed. We don't have to be "right" all the time. We can make mistakes. However, sitting around hoping every problem we ever have resolves itself or trying to form committees to discuss every single little thing for days/months/years doesn't improve Gentoo in any way. I am so waiting for my term to end on the Council so I can procmail this list to /dev/null and never have to deal with this sort of crap again. Sure, I'll miss some important information, but the signal to noise is so high (like this email and most of the emails proceeding it) that it is damn near impossible to get any decent technical discussions going on. Here's another take on this "issue" that I'm sure lots of people will take offense to, but I don't care. What if your opinion doesn't really matter? Think about that for a minute. We're hearing tons of this "well, if $blah happens, then..." argument form people. No offense meant to any of you personally, but leave. If you're really that offended by this, you might as well pack up now and save yourself a month of waiting. It is very likely that the Council is going to enact this. It is fully within the Council's rights to do so, even *without* getting anyone's opinions but our own. That is kinda the *point* of the Council, to be able to make decisions like this where it is *obvious* that there are going to be multiple sides and likely never a consensus on what to do. So rather than sit around doing nothing and letting this linger for months (waiting for the next Council? Are you serious?) and months, we would prefer to do something about it. If that means voting and turning it down, then so be it. If it means approving it and enacting it, then you have a simple course of action. Don't vote for us again (not like that will be a problem) and vote for nominees that think more like you do on this particular issue. Just remember, that no matter who you vote for (unless you vote for yourself), there are going to be times when that person's opinion differs from your own. That's just the way things are in a representative government. If you really have a problem with this, I suggest you move on to another distribution which governs itself differently. Remember, it was Gentoo's own developers, via a global vote, that enacted the current "government" structure for Gentoo. If you don't like it, blame yourselves. :P -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Soon to be former Council Member and glad/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now > would be the time. Really, I don't like the idea...the list has been calm for some time now, the discussions were lengthy sometimes but not aggressive. V-Li -- http://www.gentoo.org/ http://www.faulhammer.org/ http://www.gnupg.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:41:33 -0700: > 1). Create 1 (ONE) new list, which, for the purposes of this discussion > I will call it gentoo-dev-info (the name matters not). The requirement > for subscription for all devs would shift from gentoo-dev to > gentoo-dev-info. > > 2). All *new* threads should cross post (regardless of whether it is > from a dev or a user) to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-dev-info. Those that > don't cross post (either by ignorance or accident) can be forwarded by > someone to the missing list. > > 3). The reply-to header for gentoo-dev-info should be set to gentoo-dev. > > 4). No further e-mail will be sent to gentoo-dev-info on this new thread > until a resolution on what actions if any need to be undertaken. [snip] I'd add one more. On some of the long threads, someone has been kind enough to post a summary on occasion. I'd suggest those summaries be posted to the dev-info (or whatever it becomes) list as well, with the same x-posting and reply-to rules as thread-starters. I don't recall who it has been that has done such summaries, but I've found them useful, and others have remarked that they have as well. I believe they'll be equally useful on the proposed low-noise -info list... with the caveat that the summaries be just that, not add any personal opinion beyond the summary, and /possibly/ that whoever this summarizer is, it be made an "officially blessed" position, so not just anyone could post a reply and call it a summary. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:01:53 -0600: > Why don't we create the gentoo-project mailing > list, and, you know, actually wait a bit to see how that actually goes. > Then we can talk about how best to handle -dev. One shit at a time, > people. +1 It should also be noted that it's council election time, and I don't believe a change such as closing -dev to moderated write status is really urgent enough to have the outgoing council handle. Let the folks running for council now make their positions part of their platforms, and after - project is up and running for a couple months and the new council is in place, /then/ let's see if moderating -dev remains a burning enough issue to be voted on. Otherwise, what happens if the new council sees things differently. If they reverse course, it's going to cause reverberations. If they are unhappy with things but decide to uphold the previous council, well that has its own problems. Here's what I'd suggest. Let the current council have its vote -- as a recommendation for the new council, not a binding/active decision. Then the new council can come in and build on those preliminaries, taking into account further developments as -project comes into its own, as they see fit. If the recommendation from the old council and the implementation of the new council both go the same way, it'll be a VERY strong decision. If the new council sees things differently, at least with it being an issue during the nomination and vote, they'll be able to point to that and say we did as we were elected to do. Either way, I believe it'll be a rather stronger decision than if the outgoing council acts on it as what amounts to lame ducks. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Daniel Ostrow wrote: > I as a developer find it very difficult to cut though what I consider > noise to find the bits that I consider important to being able to > continue being an effective developer on a list that I am *required* to > be subscribed to. We have considered the likes of a moderated list, an > announce only list and now this sillyness to help in cutting down on > what a lot of us see as noise. How about we try something elsea self > moderated quasi-announce list... Now this idea I really like. Some things have to be considered though, the biggest one being how to ensure that the decisions and consensus of the discussions on -dev actually make their way over to -dev-info. Also how to handle sub-thread tangents and etc. All in all, I think it's worth thinking about. -- dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed gentoo org it could suck an ancient virus from the sea 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Mike Doty wrote: > All- > > We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only > devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate > in > bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the > gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. > there is no requirement to be on this new list. > > This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out > anyway) > but that's a path to cross later. > > We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be > the time. I heard a lot of good or interesting solutions for our ML "problems" but this wasn't one of them. Why don't we create the gentoo-project mailing list, and, you know, actually wait a bit to see how that actually goes. Then we can talk about how best to handle -dev. One shit at a time, people. If you want to make -dev dev-only then fine, but drop the moderation gimmick. People can post to -project or email privately and if a developer thinks it's something everyone should see it they can simply forward it. -- dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed gentoo org it could suck an ancient virus from the sea 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Markus Ullmann wrote: > Hey ;) > > As an extension of it. What about this: > > _All_ posts from -dev go in CC to -project. Even if the posts are > moderated, they always appear there. That way you can have a (moderated) > subset as -dev and people who want to get their words and fights out, > can do that on -project? > Sounds good. But your devs are not the people to moderate. Nor is devrel based on what kloeri told me about it. If you want users and devs in a forum which is moderated, then the moderators *have* to have authority over _both_ and more importantly a mandate. This has all been discussed before, it's what lead to the CoC (which arguably wasn't needed) and the proctors (who definitely were and still are.) *Face it guys*, you made a mistake in getting rid of them. Running around trying to get more toys isn't going to change that, and all you're doing now is wasting the last year's work on the non-technical aspects of development, and potentially digging a much bigger, much nastier hole. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 00:55 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: > Mike Doty wrote: > > We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where > > only devs can post, > > Restricting freedom to post is like setting up surveilance and censorship > against terrorism. No, it is nothing like it. Removing the right to speak, which is granted solely and absolutely by Gentoo, is nothing like surveillance and censorship on citizens of a country that explicitly allows free speech. > I hate it when the "rulers" think they can impose such decisions upon the > people and do not see how they obviously impact their freedom. What "freedom" are you talking about? This is Gentoo, not some fictional country. The only "rights" people are given with regards to Gentoo are the rights given to them by the licenses under which our software is distributed and the rules under which we govern ourselves. We have *no* rule *anywhere* guaranteeing freedom of speech to *anyone* and shouldn't be compared to a country's laws which explicitly *does* grant that right. Remember that we do *not* grant free speech. The freedom to speak on official Gentoo media is a privilege, not a right, and it is a privilege that can be revoked. > If it is only against a single User who has done something bad, but against > all users in general, you are crazy .. Yes, because rules should never be enforced in a fair and equal manner against everyone. Instead, they should have special cases and be enforced differently for each person. Even better would be to allow the rich or popular to completely circumvent any rules put in place. That makes so much more sense than writing out a simple set of rules or guidelines and applying them unilaterally. Call me crazy, but... oh wait, you did. Nevermind... ;] -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Mike Doty wrote: > We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where > only devs can post, Restricting freedom to post is like setting up surveilance and censorship against terrorism. I hate it when the "rulers" think they can impose such decisions upon the people and do not see how they obviously impact their freedom. If it is only against a single User who has done something bad, but against all users in general, you are crazy .. -Stefan -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Hey ;) As an extension of it. What about this: _All_ posts from -dev go in CC to -project. Even if the posts are moderated, they always appear there. That way you can have a (moderated) subset as -dev and people who want to get their words and fights out, can do that on -project? Greetz -Jokey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Tiziano Müller wrote: > Let's go for censorship! Let's vote for gagging those users who don't > have any idea of development and those ex-devs who think they still have > anything to say. Yawn... > > And to give that comment a technical side: > - Do you think that any dev will regularly check for messages written by > users he barely knows and give his ok? Risking being moderated himself > if somebody else with magic foo thinks that the post was inappropriate? given I don't have much time I cannot tell if I'll be really able but I have _no_ problems in modding up emails. > - Who decides/defines when a post is a bad post? the same people that did before? > - What if one dev thinks a post is inappropriate and rejects it, can > another dev still let it through? why? > - Why not just make -core o+r if you think that it gets leaked out > anyway and leave -dev as it is? core is good as is. > - When do we start with the moderation of -project? -project, project's rules... lu - I don't give a damn -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Mike Doty schrieb: > All- > > We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only > devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate > in > bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the > gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. > there is no requirement to be on this new list. Hmm, interesting. Should "We're going to change..." be interpreted as a fact and the voting itself is only a formal thing? Because if that's the case, we can close -dev completely and just keep -announcement and admire the decisions made by some people. > > This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out > anyway) > but that's a path to cross later. > > We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be > the time. Let's go for censorship! Let's vote for gagging those users who don't have any idea of development and those ex-devs who think they still have anything to say. And to give that comment a technical side: - Do you think that any dev will regularly check for messages written by users he barely knows and give his ok? Risking being moderated himself if somebody else with magic foo thinks that the post was inappropriate? - Who decides/defines when a post is a bad post? - What if one dev thinks a post is inappropriate and rejects it, can another dev still let it through? - Why not just make -core o+r if you think that it gets leaked out anyway and leave -dev as it is? - When do we start with the moderation of -project? Cheers. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
