Re: Moderation
Your message is hostile, and unkind. Mike's message was explaining the situation, but you attack him and accuse him. I think you made Mike's point. Just like we do not accept obvious garbage language, we also do not accept hostility towards other members of this list. Please try to use a kinder tone in the future.
Re: Moderation
On 2/18/20 12:07 AM, Mike Gerwitz wrote: On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 17:25:38 +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote: Indeed, given the toxicity on this list, I had presumed there was no moderation (any more). If it is that modereration is being applied, it is either sorely deficient, or an indication of the language that GNU permits (in spite of the 'kind communication' document). Which is a good demonstration of why people might not find it a welcoming organization. It is worth reminding that readers of this list cannot see the number and type of messages being rejected (and so cannot judge what moderation is being done), and that this moderation is being done by volunteers on their own time. It is also worth reminding that it is not possible to make all parties happy. Indeed, moderators get verbal lashings from all sides. Thanks for confirming the toxicity is acceptable to the list administrators. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell
Re: Moderation
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 17:25:38 +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > Indeed, given the toxicity on this list, I had presumed there was no > moderation (any more). If it is that modereration is being applied, it is > either sorely deficient, or an indication of the language that GNU permits > (in spite of the 'kind communication' document). Which is a good > demonstration of why people might not find it a welcoming organization. It is worth reminding that readers of this list cannot see the number and type of messages being rejected (and so cannot judge what moderation is being done), and that this moderation is being done by volunteers on their own time. It is also worth reminding that it is not possible to make all parties happy. Indeed, moderators get verbal lashings from all sides. -- Mike Gerwitz signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Moderation
On 2/12/20 4:00 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: Hi Mike & Brandon, Ludovic Courtès skribis: A large part of the traffic over the last few weeks was repeated ad-hominem attacks, always by the same people. This is a violation of the list’s stated policy at <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss>. It gives a poor image of the project and undoubtedly silences many. I call on to you to make it stop. I reckon moderation is a tough and thankless task, and I am grateful for your work, but I think it’s in the project’s interest to put an end to abuse of that sort. Indeed, given the toxicity on this list, I had presumed there was no moderation (any more). If it is that modereration is being applied, it is either sorely deficient, or an indication of the language that GNU permits (in spite of the 'kind communication' document). Which is a good demonstration of why people might not find it a welcoming organization. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell
Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Moderation
Le dimanche 16 février 2020, 09:38:52 CET Kim Lee a écrit : > u wnt it both ways! under the 1 hand u want moderation. at the same > time u want not to be. > i think u want other people moderated but not u. > > u r just arrogent! Worse: > Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Februar 2020 um 01:23 Uhr > Von: "Mark Wielaard" >> If >> there is anything I can do to help with the moderation please let me >> know. I think they, without admitting it directly thou, want to be added *again* as moderators (while they have been removed after abusing it).
Aw: Re: Moderation
u wnt it both ways! under the 1 hand u want moderation. at the same time u want not to be. i think u want other people moderated but not u. u r just arrogent! Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Februar 2020 um 01:23 Uhr Von: "Mark Wielaard" An: "Ludovic Courtès" Cc: "Mike Gerwitz" , "Brandon Invergo" , gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org Betreff: Re: Moderation Hi, On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:00:41PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > To make matters worse, my own posts are moderated and I’ve seen a 2- to > 3-day delay before they’d reach the mailing list lately. That makes it > hard for me to participate. > > Meanwhile, all the abuse email is getting through unmoderated AFAICS > (i.e., there’s no delay between their ‘Date’ header and the time I > receive them.) I am seeing the same thing. My own posts seem to take multiple days to arrive on the list. While others seem to only have a short delay. If there is anything I can do to help with the moderation please let me know. Thanks, Mark
Re: Moderation
Hi, On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:00:41PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > To make matters worse, my own posts are moderated and I’ve seen a 2- to > 3-day delay before they’d reach the mailing list lately. That makes it > hard for me to participate. > > Meanwhile, all the abuse email is getting through unmoderated AFAICS > (i.e., there’s no delay between their ‘Date’ header and the time I > receive them.) I am seeing the same thing. My own posts seem to take multiple days to arrive on the list. While others seem to only have a short delay. If there is anything I can do to help with the moderation please let me know. Thanks, Mark
Re: Moderation
To make matters worse, my own posts are moderated and Iâve seen a 2- to 3-day delay before theyâd reach the mailing list lately. That makes it hard for me to participate. And that is why we should all be using the lists that we actually setup for this whole for these type of discussions. Meanwhile, all the abuse email is getting through unmoderated AFAICS (i.e., thereâs no delay between their âDateâ header and the time I receive them.) Mike, Brandon: please rectify this situation. Please send moderation complains with examples of abusive mail that you think gotten through directly to the administrators. If you are on CC, you will get the email directly from anyone and there is nothing that can be done. Nor is this how you address volunteers, by trying to order them to do your commands -- they do not answer to you. Instead you could help to foster a kinder discussion temperature here, something everyone would benefit from.
Re: Moderation
Hi Mike & Brandon, Ludovic Courtès skribis: > A large part of the traffic over the last few weeks was repeated > ad-hominem attacks, always by the same people. > > This is a violation of the list’s stated policy at > <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss>. It gives a > poor image of the project and undoubtedly silences many. > > I call on to you to make it stop. I reckon moderation is a tough and > thankless task, and I am grateful for your work, but I think it’s in the > project’s interest to put an end to abuse of that sort. I didn’t get any response from you on this matter. To make matters worse, my own posts are moderated and I’ve seen a 2- to 3-day delay before they’d reach the mailing list lately. That makes it hard for me to participate. Meanwhile, all the abuse email is getting through unmoderated AFAICS (i.e., there’s no delay between their ‘Date’ header and the time I receive them.) Mike, Brandon: please rectify this situation. Thanks in advance, Ludo’. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Moderation
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 22:39:18 -0500, Mike Gerwitz wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 20:38:03 -0500, nylxs wrote: >> It is the only thing that is productive. > > No, it is not productive. You have caused a significant moderation > burden. For someone trying to stick up for GNU, you're doing a poor job > of working with us. As I've said many times, I oppose public discussion > of governance, and yet moderators' attention has instead been diverted > to moderating hateful messages. This is wasteful for everyone > involved. Would our time not be better spent on substance? To clarify: I didn't mean to imply that I'd inhibit discussions of governance. I merely meant that it'd be more productive to spend my time reading the messages substantively and engaging in constructive discourse. -- Mike Gerwitz signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Moderation
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 20:38:03 -0500, nylxs wrote: > It is the only thing that is productive. No, it is not productive. You have caused a significant moderation burden. For someone trying to stick up for GNU, you're doing a poor job of working with us. As I've said many times, I oppose public discussion of governance, and yet moderators' attention has instead been diverted to moderating hateful messages. This is wasteful for everyone involved. Would our time not be better spent on substance? > So stay on the real topic. GNU needs no changes because it is > effectively run by RMS. Furthermore, GNU is Richard's personal > organization, and people participate either because they support his > vision, or they are delusional. It has NEVER been a Democracy. Please stop with the unkind words. Some people may participate in the GNU Project because they support Richard personally, but certainly not all. We do not even require that maintainers agree with the free software philosophy. We don't even inquire. For example, I support the GNU Project and free software, but I do not pledge support any one person's personal agenda. Richard has explicitly told others to support free software, not him personally. In fact, him and I have disagreed on and debated a number of things within GNU. And considering that he appointed me to the GNU Advisory Committee, I can only assume that he appreciates the constructive (and sometimes harsh) criticism that I provide. Characterizing GNU as "Richard's personal organization" is inaccurate and dangerous because it helps feed the unrest that you're speaking out against. Richard is the Chief GNUisance, but he delegates many responsibilities, and he does ask many people for advise before making decisions. He holds far more authority than he chooses to exercise. > Everything it has ever accomplished is because of his person effort to > float political ideals he feels are vital. rms has made an enormous impact, but this statement diminishes the enormous effort that all of our volunteers have put into GNU over the years---that includes not only maintainers appointed by rms himself or those acting on his behalf, but all contributors of code; documentation; bug reports; support; donations; kind words; and everything else. -- Mike Gerwitz signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Moderation
On 1/15/20 12:25 PM, orbu...@tutanota.com wrote: > Because it’s unproductive > > Jan 14, 2020, 19:55 by mrbrk...@optonline.net: > >> On 1/14/20 10:42 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote: >> Then why did you start in the first place with defamation of GNU project and RMS? >>> This has been discussed ad nauseam and every conceivable point has been >>> made multiple times over. Let's please move on. >>> >> >> >> why should we? >> > > It is the only thing that is productive. This whole conversaiton is a perverse attempt at removing RMS after he was wrongful pulbically disparaged. So every conversation about GNU governence, and codes of conducts that doesn't discuss this is not just a total WASTE of time, but it also demands one to immorally participate in a smoke screen by people who maliciously want to remove Stallman for their own benifit. So stay on the real topic. GNU needs no changes because it is effectively run by RMS. Furthermore, GNU is Richard's personal organization, and people participate either because they support his vision, or they are delusional. It has NEVER been a Democracy. Everything it has ever accomplished is because of his person effort to float political ideals he feels are vital.
Re: Moderation
Because it’s unproductive Jan 14, 2020, 19:55 by mrbrk...@optonline.net: > On 1/14/20 10:42 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote: > >>> Then why did you start in the first place with defamation of GNU >>> project and RMS? >>> >> This has been discussed ad nauseam and every conceivable point has been >> made multiple times over. Let's please move on. >> > > > why should we? >
Re: Moderation
On 1/14/20 10:42 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote: >> Then why did you start in the first place with defamation of GNU >> project and RMS? > This has been discussed ad nauseam and every conceivable point has been > made multiple times over. Let's please move on. why should we?
Re: Moderation
* Carlos O'Donell [2020-01-14 22:41]: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:25 PM Jean Louis wrote: > > Then why did you start in the first place with defamation of GNU > > project and RMS? > > Ludovic is asking about what is being written on the mailing list, but > your response is a question about a statement that has nothing to do > with what is being written on the mailing list. Your statement does > not logically follow Ludovic's question. > > What does your alleged off-site defamation have to do with what is > being written on this mailing list? > > If you find a case of defamation posted to this mailing list then > please raise this with Brandon and Mike the moderators. > > Cheers, > Carlos. It is very much connected. Ludovic started with defamation, and in the next step, he was convinced that he will kick RMS on this mailing list. What he does is divide and conquer. I cannot say that is good for any group. Then he complains if there is something he does not like on the mailing list. It is very related. First step, public defamation. Did not work. Next step, divide and conquer by using remote means of rumor mongering. Jean
Re: Moderation / Censorship
On 14/01/2020 19:28, Jean Louis wrote: > * Ludovic Courtès [2020-01-14 15:39]: >> Dear moderators, >> >> A large part of the traffic over the last few weeks was repeated >> ad-hominem attacks, always by the same people. >> >> This is a violation of the list’s stated policy at >> <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss>. It gives a >> poor image of the project and undoubtedly silences many. >> >> I call on to you to make it stop. I reckon moderation is a tough and >> thankless task, and I am grateful for your work, but I think it’s in the >> project’s interest to put an end to abuse of that sort. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Ludo’. > > Then why did you start in the first place with defamation of GNU > project and RMS? > > Reference: > https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ > > It is violation of GUIX Code of Conduct. Neither Moderation nor a Code of Conduct is a solution We need to think outside the box about the way communication is effected in free software communities. It looks like the list is already moderated / censored. I posted a message today and it took 59 minutes to be distributed. Check the Received headers of messages you receive to see if that is happening to other people. Regards, Daniel
Re: Moderation
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 19:28:18 +0100, Jean Louis wrote: >> A large part of the traffic over the last few weeks was repeated >> ad-hominem attacks, always by the same people. >> >> This is a violation of the list’s stated policy at >> <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss>. It gives a >> poor image of the project and undoubtedly silences many. >> >> I call on to you to make it stop. I reckon moderation is a tough and >> thankless task, and I am grateful for your work, but I think it’s in the >> project’s interest to put an end to abuse of that sort. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Ludo’. > > Then why did you start in the first place with defamation of GNU > project and RMS? This has been discussed ad nauseam and every conceivable point has been made multiple times over. Let's please move on. People on this list can help out the moderators by not requiring moderation. Please. -- Mike Gerwitz signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Moderation
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:25 PM Jean Louis wrote: > Then why did you start in the first place with defamation of GNU > project and RMS? Ludovic is asking about what is being written on the mailing list, but your response is a question about a statement that has nothing to do with what is being written on the mailing list. Your statement does not logically follow Ludovic's question. What does your alleged off-site defamation have to do with what is being written on this mailing list? If you find a case of defamation posted to this mailing list then please raise this with Brandon and Mike the moderators. Cheers, Carlos.
Re: Moderation
* Ludovic Courtès [2020-01-14 15:39]: > Dear moderators, > > A large part of the traffic over the last few weeks was repeated > ad-hominem attacks, always by the same people. > > This is a violation of the list’s stated policy at > <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss>. It gives a > poor image of the project and undoubtedly silences many. > > I call on to you to make it stop. I reckon moderation is a tough and > thankless task, and I am grateful for your work, but I think it’s in the > project’s interest to put an end to abuse of that sort. > > Thanks in advance, > Ludo’. Then why did you start in the first place with defamation of GNU project and RMS? Reference: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ It is violation of GUIX Code of Conduct. Jean
Moderation
Dear moderators, A large part of the traffic over the last few weeks was repeated ad-hominem attacks, always by the same people. This is a violation of the list’s stated policy at <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss>. It gives a poor image of the project and undoubtedly silences many. I call on to you to make it stop. I reckon moderation is a tough and thankless task, and I am grateful for your work, but I think it’s in the project’s interest to put an end to abuse of that sort. Thanks in advance, Ludo’. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Moderation of gnu-misc-discuss
Hello, everyone: Attacks against individuals will now be considered off-topic for this list. Defenses of attacks against individuals are also off-topic. Let's keep discussion oriented toward the GNU Project and free software. If you have a disagreement with an individual in matters that do pertain to GNU or free software, please communicate kindly and constructively without resorting to attacks. If you have comments about someone's personal opinions or actions unrelated to the GNU Project, it does not belong here. As a reminder, all GNU lists are subject to the kind communication guidelines, found here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html Additionally, here are some suggestions: Please consider ignoring off-topic messages rather than replying to them on-list; those replies will also be off-topic. Rather than calling out a message as off-topic, please send such messages to gnu-misc-discuss-ow...@gnu.org. If you find that a message is delivered directly to you but has not been delivered to the list, please do not include gnu-misc-discuss in the list of recipients---such replies not only cause confusion, but may quote a message that has been rejected from the list. Please also try to avoid tangents that distract from the topic under discussion. If a tangent happens to be on-topic for this list, please consider starting a new thread or changing the subject line. Otherwise, please continue such discussions in private by dropping gnu-misc-discuss from the list of recipients. If you have any questions, feel free to reply to this thread or contact me or Brandon privately. Thank you! -- Mike Gerwitz Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B 2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: list moderation
Hi Brandon, On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 11:59:04AM +, Brandon Invergo wrote: > Also, it is true that you and the others have been involved longer than > me, but please do not in turn minimize the time and effort I have > invested in GNU, especially in the thankless, mundane, boring > behind-the-scenes work that I've been doing (at the constant edge of > burnout) so that everyone else can just keep on hacking. Please don't burn out. I do believe we need you for the future of GNU. I truly hope one outcome of the current discussions about what defines GNU will be a structure that reduces the stress and burnout because tasks and responsibilities are better described. So people can more easily volunteer for tasks when they see someone is getting overloaded. > And yes, my > views have evolved since I have become more involved in GNU in > non-maintainership tasks and I understand more about the overall project > and the reality of keeping it running. I would hope that those views > are valuable to others, should anyone be curious to listen. Yes, I very much would like to hear about your views. > And that's the last I'm going to say on this list about the current > situation. I do support that. And would urge others to drop this particular thread. Yes, there was a break of trust. But that will just take time to heal (I hope). Brandon and Mike do provide a valuable service of trying to give us a kind public list to discuss all things GNU. I hope they don't burn out, because I do know how hard that is. Please give them a bit of time to make this happen. Lets just turn the discussion back to GNU Project governance issues while avoiding specific discussions about people and their capabilities. Cheers, Mark
Re: list moderation
Lets please drop this tangent of what was moderated or not, it has been raised and and it has been resolved. There have been several messages re-raising it, it doesn't further any discussions, so we might as well drop it.
Re: list moderation
There is plenty of transparancy, Brandon has been very open about it. Despite immense presure, and continued attacks from all sides. Continuing this, literally, tit-for-tat, thread isn't beneficial. So how about we drop this subject, and discuss the original topic instead?
Re: list moderation
Le mercredi 6 novembre 2019, 12:17:18 CET Marcel a écrit : > On 11/6/19 5:51 PM, Andy Wingo wrote: > >> Can you explain how “moderation was being used in a biased manner”, > >> giving specific examples? > > > > I am also interested in answers to this question. > > You can look at the arbitrary and unexplained censorship of my messages > as an example of how it was being used in a biased manner. Same about Dora.
Re: list moderation
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:42 PM Mike Gerwitz wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 15:45:40 -0500, Thompson, David wrote: > > I hope you can see the terrible optics this has. Something has > > happened behind the scenes, shortly after you and Mike became > > moderators, that makes it appear as though Carlos and Mark were > > retaliated against for being critical of GNU leadership. > > The optics are indeed terrible. But please trust me when I say that > Brandon does not deserve the criticism that he is getting. As he said, > we're not going to discuss internal GNU matters here. It feels naive to trust when there is no transparency and given Mark's statement that there's been a breach of trust between him and Brandon. - Dave
Re: list moderation
Ludovic, Ludovic Courtès writes: > I feel bad that you’re characterizing us this way. You’re talking about > people who’ve dedicated many years or their lives to GNU (more than you > did!) and still pour huge amounts of energy into it. > > That you disagree with what we do is fine; that you accuse us of > attacking GNU is not. It’s not even plausible to anyone who’s been > following along. We all *are* GNU. > > As for the disagreement itself: it’s also a surprise to me. We met on a > couple of GHMs. In particular, in 2011 in Paris, we had discussions > about governance not unlike those we’re having now; at the time I recall > you were part of the discussions and not seeing anyone “taking arms.” > > It’s OK if you view things differently now, but I would prefer if you > would use more nuanced wording when describing the actions of others. > We have different views, but we’re working for the betterment of GNU. I'm sorry I chose the wording "taking up arms" as it was a blunt mischaracterization. There is a lot of emotion right now and it is difficult to express it properly sometimes. I have made better responses to your actions elsewhere. Those still stand. Overall, I will now just add to those my supreme disappointment at the level of divisiveness within the GNU community now compared to two months ago. Also, it is true that you and the others have been involved longer than me, but please do not in turn minimize the time and effort I have invested in GNU, especially in the thankless, mundane, boring behind-the-scenes work that I've been doing (at the constant edge of burnout) so that everyone else can just keep on hacking. And yes, my views have evolved since I have become more involved in GNU in non-maintainership tasks and I understand more about the overall project and the reality of keeping it running. I would hope that those views are valuable to others, should anyone be curious to listen. And that's the last I'm going to say on this list about the current situation. -- -brandon
Re: list moderation
Hi Brandon, Brandon Invergo skribis: > Andy Wingo writes: > >>> Who is “we” in “we have decided” above? >> >> I don't think this question has been answered. Brandon, could you >> clarify please? > >>> Can you explain how “moderation was being used in a biased manner”, >>> giving specific examples? >> >> I am also interested in answers to this question. > > I do not intend to discuss internal GNU matters on a public mailing > list. Wait, the topic is precisely moderation of this public mailing list; I think you can’t simply avoid the question, you’re accountable. > I'm sorry you have interpreted it that way. I have been working > tirelessly to keep peace since you created this mess a few weeks ago. > Please keep in mind that "something was broken" for me the moment all of > you took up arms against GNU. I feel bad that you’re characterizing us this way. You’re talking about people who’ve dedicated many years or their lives to GNU (more than you did!) and still pour huge amounts of energy into it. That you disagree with what we do is fine; that you accuse us of attacking GNU is not. It’s not even plausible to anyone who’s been following along. We all *are* GNU. As for the disagreement itself: it’s also a surprise to me. We met on a couple of GHMs. In particular, in 2011 in Paris, we had discussions about governance not unlike those we’re having now; at the time I recall you were part of the discussions and not seeing anyone “taking arms.” It’s OK if you view things differently now, but I would prefer if you would use more nuanced wording when describing the actions of others. We have different views, but we’re working for the betterment of GNU. Thanks, Ludo’.
Re: list moderation
Andy Wingo writes: >> Who is “we” in “we have decided” above? > > I don't think this question has been answered. Brandon, could you > clarify please? >> Can you explain how “moderation was being used in a biased manner”, >> giving specific examples? > > I am also interested in answers to this question. I do not intend to discuss internal GNU matters on a public mailing list. > For what it is worth, until now I could understand that you were > operating in good faith in your various roles in GNU, that you were > genuinely working for the benefit of GNU, even if we disagreed on the > advisability of different options. I am sad to say that I no longer > feel this way. It's not impossible to work together, but something has > broken. I'm sorry you have interpreted it that way. I have been working tirelessly to keep peace since you created this mess a few weeks ago. Please keep in mind that "something was broken" for me the moment all of you took up arms against GNU. I have nevertheless tried to work around that feeling on order to find some common ground. I firmly believe in the importance of being able to work with people with whom one fundamentally disagrees. But ironically, in working to maintain peace, I cannot please everyone all the time. I will continue to act toward the betterment of GNU, and sometimes that might conflict with your own interpretation of the situation. I am sorry for that but I hope that we can eventually navigate our way towards a resolution. -- -brandon
Re: list moderation
On 11/6/19 5:51 PM, Andy Wingo wrote: >> Can you explain how “moderation was being used in a biased manner”, >> giving specific examples? > > I am also interested in answers to this question. You can look at the arbitrary and unexplained censorship of my messages as an example of how it was being used in a biased manner.
Re: list moderation
Hello, On Sun 03 Nov 2019 22:34, Ludovic Courtès writes: > Brandon Invergo skribis: > >> For the past month or so, every message to the list has been subject to >> moderation, so-called "emergency moderation". It has become clear that >> the moderation was being used in a biased manner. We have decided to >> remove Mark and Carlos as moderators/admins and to turn off the >> emergency moderation. We will not place any restriction on the topic of >> discussion beyond what is outlined in the pre-existing list guidelines. > > Who is “we” in “we have decided” above? I don't think this question has been answered. Brandon, could you clarify please? > Can you explain how “moderation was being used in a biased manner”, > giving specific examples? I am also interested in answers to this question. For what it is worth, until now I could understand that you were operating in good faith in your various roles in GNU, that you were genuinely working for the benefit of GNU, even if we disagreed on the advisability of different options. I am sad to say that I no longer feel this way. It's not impossible to work together, but something has broken. Andy
Re: list moderation
On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 15:45:40 -0500, Thompson, David wrote: > I hope you can see the terrible optics this has. Something has > happened behind the scenes, shortly after you and Mike became > moderators, that makes it appear as though Carlos and Mark were > retaliated against for being critical of GNU leadership. The optics are indeed terrible. But please trust me when I say that Brandon does not deserve the criticism that he is getting. As he said, we're not going to discuss internal GNU matters here. I'm sorry for the vagueness, but pressing it here won't get anyone any further. -- Mike Gerwitz signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: list moderation
Le mardi 5 novembre 2019, 22:17:07 CET Brandon Invergo a écrit : > We do have a problem with someone under moderation who is sending > messages off-list. It probably would have happened eventually anyway, > no matter who was moderating. Anyway, I do not know how to moderate > that. If you have suggestions on how to handle it, I'm all ears. Suing senders of possible harassment would be the /de facto/ social solution on a legal ground. Make mailing-list software censor the mail address of *anybody* communicating through the mailing list would prevent such thing to happen to more people in the future (this could be advertised as a “anti-harassment feature”). Some “user-friendly” high-level and poorly made software already do this by default (so to avoid DKIM issues). Then the list would force itself as centralized unavoidable intermediary for all communication between third parties, unless active countermeasures (addressbooks or search engines) are used. I strongly oppose this solution. It consist in centralization and authoritarism, as well as breaking mail even more.
“Moderation” / “Censorship” / “Filtering” [Was: Re: list moderation]
Le mardi 5 novembre 2019 18:17:16 CET, vous avez écrit : > Samuel Thibault writes: > > Wow, this is so welcoming a community... > > > > Samuel > > Ruben has been placed under moderation and I rejected the message that > you are referring to. If you received it, it's because he sent it to > you personally (I guess by scraping the email addresses of everyone who > has participated). I will see what options are available to us. Mmh, this is very interesting. It shows two problems, one social and one technical. First of all, the first problem, social, shows moderation is censorship, because here it suffers from one of its flaws: when censoring something instead of fixing or answering it (and fixing the root of the problem we try to censor), that same thing will keep going, but outside of our eyesight (hence of our possibility to react and fix it). That’s not to say I want that moderation to cease too (lax is good), but just to better define terms (censorship might be not considered always bad (for instance self-censorship, or local personal censorship (as does a spam filter, a(n) (ad)blocker, or simply refusing to read something), though this is arguably (less) censorship)). “Moderation” is a often a meliorative term for censorship (that arbitrarily groups it with *true* moderation: positively tell people to actively write less or tone down (which at least give them the choice and help adapt in a more fluid, consistent and responsible way), like ams did (and was acclaimed for) until then. However, I guess some people might argue some specific censorship (like removing what’s illegal (like insults, hatred, possibly racism, critique against some regime, etc.) or useless (like spam or more broadly self- repetition)) is not (it is, removing spam is useful censorship… that ought to be inspected… at least spammers don’t complain), and I find the notion of self- censorship is arguably strictly the same, and both local personal censorship and refusal to read are likely not (contrarily to what a Crocker’s rule follower might advocate), hence the line to draw before saying it’s not censoring anymore. So I propose saying “moderation”, or at least “positive moderation” for doing moderation like I said ams did (otherwise any censorship might be moderation, because it indeed moderates the amount of what’s possible to read, so it becomes either a too broad terms, either a poorly defined one), and “filtering” for actual removing or blocking of messages. If you want to use “censorship” like me, please keep using “censorship” when it’s done by an entity different from the entity not reading anymore. The more different the entity, the more censorship it is. If the censor doesn’t/can’t read what he censors, he’s really much one. If it’s a small part of the audience that would otherwise read, it is. If it is *allegeably* most of the audiance, it might class as “tyranny of the majority”, but then it’s discutable. If that’s a software, that might still be, depending on several factors (is it free? does the user knows how it works? how to use it? inspected its job to be sure it works?).
Filtering indirection [Was: Re: list moderation]
Le mardi 5 novembre 2019 18:17:16 CET, vous avez écrit : > Samuel Thibault writes: > > Wow, this is so welcoming a community... > > > > Samuel I initially thought that was in answer to a message of mine, because my MUA placed it under… > Ruben has been placed under moderation and I rejected the message that > you are referring to. If you received it, it's because he sent it to > you personally (I guess by scraping the email addresses of everyone who > has participated). I will see what options are available to us. That raises two problems, a social and a technical one. The second, technical, for censorship failure, is that to solve this problem currently involves better knowledge from users. That can be expected of Samuel… but will everybody know it? We must find a (likely technical, at least) solution, as if people won’t learn how to personally block/filter someone (possibly easily, collectively, or maybe even automatically), maybe one day people will argue something such as “develop international procedures so to force mail servers censor mail or shut down mail servers by force or ignoring from other lawful mail servers” that would break the internet we know. Imagine gmail doing that. For instance, I first thought “but… you should not say *that* about *that* mail if it didn’t got the List-Id/List-Post!”, but that’s too technical (it’s a problem most MUA currently don’t treat specially by default list messages), and then “MUA shouldn’t include the list address if there’s not the lists headers” …but that’s negative reaction: wouldn’t work (for instance for anyone not subscribed and never having received mail from the list (hence ignoring it’s a list)). Actually a censoring list in a Cc would act exactely as someone who still receive mail from a thread person started (or was tiercely put in copy), but doesn’t want to hear about: so you can’t be expected not to answer because of it… But actually, that’s encouraging: solving it would then solve the bigger problem! So, normally, what is done? either person actively states to other recipients they don’t want to be included anymore (we’d need a new standard for doing that automatically when filtering occurs, like a formally defined header format for a control message to be sent), either person stop reading the answer per the same filter used before (either “refusing to read”, “recognizing as spam”, “not looking at/putting in the folder” (for instance when someone stops reading a whole mailing-list (that sometimes occurs sadly, though most often because of (globally relevant) mail volume, sometimes also for social reasons people here would like to avoid)) that is in user (interface) language: “fold the whole thread and stop reading it”. To the former, that clearly means “formalize censorship rules” and maybe even “publish and update them” so to move implementation of it more local or even client-side (that includes to publicly state if moderation is pre- or post-, so to possibly tell people “(don’t) wait for particular per-message censorship rejection notice to read it”, about who, what, to what extent/time/duration/ end, etc.). Then, when mailing-list receive a mail it filters, it answers with the mail refusal control message (that should look like a bounce) not only the author, but *all* participants (informing: “please don’t talk about it to us anymore, don’t put us in copy”, solving the sad situation that happens on IRC when you /ignore someone, and then see half conversations and possibly end recursively ignoring everybody). To the later, that means indirecting the filtering rules by the “references” header (collect message-id’s of everything filtered, and filter the same when it references it (depending on the filter and configuration (you might want to be aware about the difference between what come from the list and what’s personal))): so the list could have filtered Samuel’s message (and other list participants wouldn’t have seen any quote or comment, even more especially under the wrong message). And people having received the censorship control message could too. I proposed that feature to mailman hackers some years ago, when similar censorship problems happened elsewhere (I think it was on a La Quadrature du Net (EFF french equivalent) ML), but they said it wasn’t a priority, code was long to hack, they didn’t have time, and I ought to do it myself, except it’s written in Python and I don’t write python (and it isn’t extensible with C or Guile (sad dream of “I can extend any software with the favorite script language I want” that never happened), nor will because this is python, not C or lisp). Or the list could don’t filter anything, and people would, per-config, choose to see or not what moderators might have selected as “irrelevant” or “nasty” (those could even be categorized differently in different filter lists, and other people could
Re: list moderation
Le mardi 5 novembre 2019, 18:09:08 CET Samuel Thibault a écrit : > Wow, this is so welcoming a community... > > Samuel I don’t know if my MUA is failing… and understood you were talking about Ruben and not me only thanks to headers (now I’m even more strongly against single “answer-to-the-list” without CCs and semantic From), but in the future could you include quotes (possibly modified to lower the tone) so we know what mail and parts of it you answer to?
Re: list moderation
Hi, On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 04:51:09PM -0500, Thompson, David wrote: > If you're sticking to the same guidelines, what's the harm in allowing > the former moderators to continue doing the same? For the record, I don't want to. As you can probably understand it will take a bit of time before I would trust Brandon again to work on something together. I do however believe that Brandon and Mike are actually trying to moderate as we had agreed to do together. It is just a job Carlos and I thought would require more than 2 people. Which is why we asked Brandon and Mike to help us out. If only so that one of us could sleep while someone in a different timezone can watch the list... It is indeed a weird meta-topic for this list, and we could discuss it in detail, but obviously it is still a bit too fresh and somewhat personal. So lets just drop it for now and concentrate on the bigger GNU governance topics first instead of focussing on this specific issue. Thanks, Mark
Re: list moderation
Brandon, On 11/05/2019 03:38 PM, Brandon Invergo wrote: > That is not true, and it is an unfair accusation of Carlos and Mark. As > I just wrote in another message, unfounded accusations will get us > nowhere. Please let's refrain from building up false narratives. Most probably you are right. It is unlikely that they used techniques like cracking and such to get administration rights. Someone must have given the permissions to them. However, the fact remains that they took over this list against the will of quite a number of people who had expressed opposition, and that is a kind of force. I want to thank you for the excellent work you are doing. You are giving us all a lesson of impartiality. -- Dora Scilipoti GNU Education Team gnu.org/education
Re: list moderation
Thompson, David writes: > I hope you can see the terrible optics this has. Something has > happened behind the scenes, shortly after you and Mike became > moderators, that makes it appear as though Carlos and Mark were > retaliated against for being critical of GNU leadership. Optics are funny...there are just so many angles to consider. > I appreciated what they were doing and think they should be reinstated > as moderators. I find it difficult to trust the current moderators as > things stand now. Aside from turning off the global "emergency" moderation bit, I've stuck to the same general guidelines that they were using. Since I started actively moderating yesterday morning (GMT), the only person being attacked on-list is me, which I am taking in stride. I've even allowed through posts by non-subscribers to allow the criticism of me. If there's anything else that you think I'm coming up short on in my moderation, please tell me and I'll try to improve. We do have a problem with someone under moderation who is sending messages off-list. It probably would have happened eventually anyway, no matter who was moderating. Anyway, I do not know how to moderate that. If you have suggestions on how to handle it, I'm all ears. -- -brandon
Re: list moderation
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 4:17 PM Brandon Invergo wrote: > > Thompson, David writes: > > > I hope you can see the terrible optics this has. Something has > > happened behind the scenes, shortly after you and Mike became > > moderators, that makes it appear as though Carlos and Mark were > > retaliated against for being critical of GNU leadership. > > Optics are funny...there are just so many angles to consider. No one considered the retaliation angle before this announcement was made? > > I appreciated what they were doing and think they should be reinstated > > as moderators. I find it difficult to trust the current moderators as > > things stand now. > > Aside from turning off the global "emergency" moderation bit, I've stuck > to the same general guidelines that they were using. Since I started > actively moderating yesterday morning (GMT), the only person being > attacked on-list is me, which I am taking in stride. I've even allowed > through posts by non-subscribers to allow the criticism of me. If > there's anything else that you think I'm coming up short on in my > moderation, please tell me and I'll try to improve. If you're sticking to the same guidelines, what's the harm in allowing the former moderators to continue doing the same? It's not that I think you cannot do or are not doing a good job moderating, but the circumstances by which you became a moderator are alarming to me. Here's an analogy: The temporary workers that replace unionized staff during a strike might perform their tasks well, but they have no legitimacy. The former moderators were suddenly removed, new ones were assigned, and given the disagreements between former and current it is difficult to not be concerned about the rationale behind this decision. Retaliation is a very possible explanation. Is it true? I hope not, but perhaps you could shed some more light on the situation. > We do have a problem with someone under moderation who is sending > messages off-list. It probably would have happened eventually anyway, > no matter who was moderating. Anyway, I do not know how to moderate > that. If you have suggestions on how to handle it, I'm all ears. I don't know either. I think at that point it's up to the receiver to block mail from them. Thank you for stopping their messages from reaching this list, though. - Dave
Re: list moderation
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:33 PM Brandon Invergo wrote: > > Thompson, David writes: > > > So you ousted the moderators that added you as moderators? How > > lovely. The discourse here has gotten considerably worse since. > > Surely a coincidence. > > As I have made abundantly clear, I do not intend to discuss internal GNU > matters on a public list. I invite you to engage with me elsewhere. Private GNU lists are so toxic that I and many others will rarely post there. Public lists have been much better. GNU would benefit a great deal from more transparency, so I respectfully decline your invitation. > However, because this is the second time this charge has been raised, > there appears to be some confusion that needs to be cleared up. > Moderators of mailing lists that use the Mailman software are not > capable of changing the administrators or moderators of a list. They > can only moderate incoming messages. So, you have made a false > characterization of the situation by implying that I tricked them into > giving moderation rights so I could turn around and use those to oust > them. I hope you can see the terrible optics this has. Something has happened behind the scenes, shortly after you and Mike became moderators, that makes it appear as though Carlos and Mark were retaliated against for being critical of GNU leadership. I appreciated what they were doing and think they should be reinstated as moderators. I find it difficult to trust the current moderators as things stand now. - Dave
Re: list moderation
Dora Scilipoti writes: > How and by whom they were appointed remains unknown. Certainly not by > the GNU project. So the most plausible answer is that they took it by force. That is not true, and it is an unfair accusation of Carlos and Mark. As I just wrote in another message, unfounded accusations will get us nowhere. Please let's refrain from building up false narratives. -- -brandon
Re: list moderation
Thompson, David writes: > So you ousted the moderators that added you as moderators? How > lovely. The discourse here has gotten considerably worse since. > Surely a coincidence. As I have made abundantly clear, I do not intend to discuss internal GNU matters on a public list. I invite you to engage with me elsewhere. However, because this is the second time this charge has been raised, there appears to be some confusion that needs to be cleared up. Moderators of mailing lists that use the Mailman software are not capable of changing the administrators or moderators of a list. They can only moderate incoming messages. So, you have made a false characterization of the situation by implying that I tricked them into giving moderation rights so I could turn around and use those to oust them. Also, please be kinder in the way you discuss on GNU lists. Sarcasm and accusations are rarely the most effective way to engage in fruitful conversation. -- -brandon
Re: list moderation
> That is quite the misrepresentation of the situation. How moderators > are assigned is done by the GNU project, not by the person or persons > moderating the list -- so nobody got "ousted". This list was created +30 years ago by the founder and early members of the GNU Project. It was intended as a place where people would be free to express their concerns and talk about topics related to free software and GNU that did not have a place in other existing lists. It never had any kind of moderation beyond the usual deletion of spam and the inclusion of some guidelines in the info page. After all these years, suddenly the users of this list witness the entry of two people, namely Carlos O'Donell and Mark Wielaard, who abruptly declare themselves administrators and moderators. How and by whom they were appointed remains unknown. Certainly not by the GNU project. So until they offer some plausible explanation, I am very much inclined to think they took it by force. -- Dora Scilipoti GNU Education Team gnu.org/education
Re: The list discourse (was: list moderation)
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 1:54 PM Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "Thompson, David" wrote: > > So you ousted the moderators that added you as moderators? How lovely. > > The discourse here has gotten considerably worse since. Surely a > > coincidence. > > FWIW, I do not think so, on the contrary, Iʼm pleased to see even a small > shift in a discourse from @l...@gnu.org’s and @andr...@enge.fr’s “letʼs make > GNU more welcoming to new contributors by imposing ‘contracts’ on them” to > @gameonli...@redchan.it’s “letʼs make GNU more welcoming to new contributors > by reducing the burden of formalities on them”, however inappropriate the > rest of his remarks are. Ignoring the blatantly incorrect summary of what Ludovic and Andreas have said, I'm just gonna go out on a limb and say that "I prefer the toxic discourse guy" is not a great argument in favor of the changes in the discourse here. - Dave
Re: The list discourse (was: list moderation)
"Thompson, David" wrote: > So you ousted the moderators that added you as moderators? How lovely. The > discourse here has gotten considerably worse since. Surely a coincidence. FWIW, I do not think so, on the contrary, Iʼm pleased to see even a small shift in a discourse from @l...@gnu.org’s and @andr...@enge.fr’s “letʼs make GNU more welcoming to new contributors by imposing ‘contracts’ on them” to @gameonli...@redchan.it’s “letʼs make GNU more welcoming to new contributors by reducing the burden of formalities on them”, however inappropriate the rest of his remarks are. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: list moderation
> How moderators > are assigned is done by the GNU project, not by the person or persons > moderating the list -- so nobody got "ousted". This list was created +30 years ago by the founder and early members of the GNU Project as a place where people would be free to express their concerns and talk about topics related to free software and GNU that did not have a place in other existing lists. It never had any kind of moderation beyond the usual deletion of spam and the inclusion of some guidelines in the info page. After all those years, however, suddenly the users of this list witness the entry of two people, namely Carlos O'Donell and Mark Wielaard, who declare themselves administrators and moderators. How and by whom they were appointed remains unknown. Certainly not by the GNU project. So the most plausible answer is that they took it by force. -- Dora Scilipoti GNU Education Team gnu.org/education
Re: list moderation
On 2019-11-05 02:59, Ludovic Courtès wrote: A bit more than 24 hours later, two things have become clear to me: that Mark and Carlos were indeed doing a good moderation job, and that by not doing any moderation, you’ve opened the flood gates and silenced the rest of us. Funny though, I'm somehow reading you loud and clear at this end. Maybe I'm stranded in some remaining pocket of moderation? In that time we got ~100 messages, the majority of which were written by the same 3 people. Worse, many of those messages were personal attacks, and many others were off-topic for this list. Well, since we aren't throwing away the baby or the bathwater, there is bathwater. Is that a surprise? Local filtering options have not been taken away. If most of the messages you don't want are from the same three people. you can filter them out based on the From: header. If most of the unwanted messages are in the same thread, you can use a threaded mail reader which folds all of them into a single UI item that can be selected and deleted in one stroke. You can set up a rule that turfs messages based on Subject: line.
Re: list moderation
So you ousted the moderators that added you as moderators? How lovely. The discourse here has gotten considerably worse since. Surely a coincidence. That is quite the misrepresentation of the situation. How moderators are assigned is done by the GNU project, not by the person or persons moderating the list -- so nobody got "ousted". We cannot know if the discourse has gotten worse since there was no discourse to speak of before (it did not see any traffic between 2019-07 and 2019-10!). If you wish to raise messages that you think do not follow the GNU Kindness Guidelines, the best is to communicate this to the list moderators directly and not here.
Re: list moderation
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 12:41 PM Brandon Invergo wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > For the past month or so, every message to the list has been subject to > moderation, so-called "emergency moderation". It has become clear that > the moderation was being used in a biased manner. We have decided to > remove Mark and Carlos as moderators/admins and to turn off the > emergency moderation. We will not place any restriction on the topic of > discussion beyond what is outlined in the pre-existing list guidelines. So you ousted the moderators that added you as moderators? How lovely. The discourse here has gotten considerably worse since. Surely a coincidence. - Dave
Re: list moderation
Le mardi 5 novembre 2019 18:11:25 CET, vous avez écrit : > On 11/5/19 12:11 PM, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > > Stop that. Insults are even more meaningless now you’ve kept repeating > > them > > Hes an animal and your an idiot if you think you can reason with him. You and me are both animals (that’s what allow us to act at all). That’s not an insult and shouldn’t be used as such. And keeping trying to insult him as I asked you to stopped won’t make me repeat myself anymore. I will always trying to reason. And that won’t have anything to relate with idiocy since I don’t ever specially expect anything in return. I just keep doing so, and will keep that way anyway. That’s the only Right Way (too harm is done by people who finds at some point they can avoid doing so).
Re: list moderation
Samuel Thibault writes: > Wow, this is so welcoming a community... > > Samuel Ruben has been placed under moderation and I rejected the message that you are referring to. If you received it, it's because he sent it to you personally (I guess by scraping the email addresses of everyone who has participated). I will see what options are available to us. -- -brandon
Re: list moderation
Le mardi 5 novembre 2019 18:04:56 CET, vous avez écrit : > How about this. You are a [insults insults insults etc…] Stop that. Insults are even more meaningless now you’ve kept repeating them that much for the same irrational reasons (anyway insults are always irrational, as most of time it has something to do with “morality” and personal judgement). I’d be surprised that everybody wouldn’t be tired of it. You’d better stop posting that publicly then, and if you ever wanted to keep that privately, be filtered out of the mailbox of the people you keep harassing (because now this is harassing causing other harassing and even more harassing is a spiral of harassing escalation) so you unfortunately become unable to ask even relevant questions (if you yet are).
Re: list moderation
Wow, this is so welcoming a community... Samuel
Re: list moderation
> I’m surprised it’s news to you that Ruben (among others) is attacking > people personally; that’s something you could have learned from the > previous moderators. Maybe their definition of "personal attack" is broader and not quite as specific as yours or the previous moderators. > How did it fail? What do you suggest regarding elephants in this > room? > Who are you accusing of what, to be clear? >From the mail you're replying to: "This is not a place to discuss other people. This is a place to discuss GNU." Accusations, alleged or otherwise, are perhaps best requested and shared in private. > I’m baffled that you can be so assertive and dismissive of the > moderation work that was done before I don't see anything dismissive in this thread. It was stated that emergency moderation was no longer required or desired. Your assertion that moderation was clearly still needed was addressed, sufficiently I think. -Andreas
Re: list moderation
Le mardi 5 novembre 2019, 11:59:18 CET Ludovic Courtès a écrit : > silenced the rest of us. How’s that? Pre-moderation were off, afaiu. Also, what likely best silenced some people is likely the previous hours and timezones and the sleep that commonly occurs for them during them. > In [24 hours] we got ~100 messages, the majority of which were written by > the same 3 people. Cannot we have long discussions on details (that will interest a few) if we dare? most of it was nitpicking trying to make people realize the outcoming of their languages, and let’s recall ~100 message absolutely doesn’t mean ~100 messages going the same direction… actually, it’s pretty much the opposite: a high amount of messages in a short time is much more likely to represent opposing and differing views in a (possibly constructive and enriching) debate or arguing. Furthermore, as said, it was by night in Europe. Not all can be active by the same timezone. Reasoning by times as short as 24 hours on an such international list (and containing people not running by the same sleeptimes as most people) is not really relevant, maybe even meaningless. Note also all these messages were (as it is common with subject deviations) in the same sub-sub[-etc.]-threads. With subject changing. So it’s easy to fold and ignore with most MUAs… While it’s much less easy for most people to automatize counting of messages number and different people number who were emitting them (with a commonly said “user-friendly” MUA, as the KMail I’m currently using (be Gnus config back quickly)). > Worse, many of those messages were personal attacks, Only the first messages were personal attacks (against all sides, actually). Hence, this issue is totally separate from the quantity of message, and you’re misrepresenting things by presenting facts grouped that way without relations. Putting the accent on the quantity of messages, you’re even putting in question that, proportionally “many” were attacks, there were maybe a few indeed. Also note that’s why it made so much messages going forth in response for such behavior. To hatred, attacks, defamation, accusations, etc. I prefer positive reaction (explanation, discussion, learning and mutual understanding) rather than to negative ones (censorship, moderation). Not all agree, though. > and many others were off-topic for this list. Define topic then. You could say “GNU”, but then, let’s add “GNU governance” then “GNU governance people” then “GNU governance current chief” then “GNU governance current chief attacks” then “GNU governance current chief attack response” (which was personal attack). So I guess until then everything is univoquely on-topic. But then, if you say something as “this is an attack / insult”, “attacks / insult should not be done” it doesn’t really regards GNU, does it? or maybe *the later* does because it regards “GNU lists kindness objectives”… but then the former doesn’t, and also discussion about “what is an insult / attack” is off-topic… But, when discussing about anything on-topic, we might use tools… such as softwares, but also language, expressions, words… some might be insulting, attacking, etc. But however, if any tool we use (including words and their meaning, definitions) for anything on-topic lacks a central and connected place for discussing (for instance a collective dictionary that would define most terms and whose definitions would be voted on and modified by users (most dictionaries don’t agree this and even wiktionary actually follows the former)), isn’t it useful to discuss its internal (and definitions) in the same place? hence doing sometimes off-topic discussions? I’ve not seen *one* message concerning what’s topic. I tend to keep stuff public whenever possible so people can know, participate, answer if they believe we talked of them or of something or some behavior concerning them, but would have gladly moved the ~100 messages off-list if any did
Re: list moderation
On 11/5/19 10:34 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Sure, we’ll talk about governance (no quotes) as much as possible, > meaning as much as the signal-to-noise ratio doesn’t prevent that. > Governance is very much on-topic for this list. One person's noise is another person's signal. Also, as Heinlein succinctly put it, "a society that gets rid of all its troublemakers goes downhill". It is very easy to filter out all messages by a poster in your MUA, if you feel that a particular person distracts you, or overly affects your sensibilities. This approach is called "live and let live".
Re: list moderation
Le mardi 5 novembre 2019 17:30:18 CET, vous avez écrit : > Alexandre François Garreau writes: > > Aren’t these two statements contradictory (as governance is made of by > > people, and currently a single one)? as it was stated before (for > > instance by Dora) > Consider the difference between "how does the consensus model compare to > the committee model?" and "I think John Doe should be on the committee." > > Even at the RMS level, we can discuss "should RMS have more advisors?" > without specifically naming any. Okay, so we shall not speak about rms, Brandon, Mike, Carlos, etc… But this whole thread is about judging job done by Brandon, Carlos (who were discussing initially), and more generally present and past moderators… Actually isn’t it also contradictory to state “don’t talk about people” about continuing a thread that’s about some few and specific people’s competences?
Re: list moderation
Alexandre François Garreau writes: > Aren’t these two statements contradictory (as governance is made of by > people, > and currently a single one)? as it was stated before (for instance by Dora) Consider the difference between "how does the consensus model compare to the committee model?" and "I think John Doe should be on the committee." Even at the RMS level, we can discuss "should RMS have more advisors?" without specifically naming any.
Re: list moderation
Le mardi 5 novembre 2019, 13:45:57 CET Brandon Invergo a écrit : > This is not a place to discuss other people. > You are welcome to continue to discuss whatever "governance" issues you > would like here, Aren’t these two statements contradictory (as governance is made of by people, and currently a single one)? as it was stated before (for instance by Dora)
Re: list moderation
Hi Brandon, Brandon Invergo skribis: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> A bit more than 24 hours later, two things have become clear to me: that >> Mark and Carlos were indeed doing a good moderation job, and that by not >> doing any moderation, you’ve opened the flood gates and silenced the >> rest of us. >> >> In that time we got ~100 messages, the majority of which were written by >> the same 3 people. Worse, many of those messages were personal attacks, >> and many others were off-topic for this list. > > Don't misrepresent the situation. > > Ruben was placed under indefinite moderation for his attacks. The > attacks took place overnight while I was asleep (he's obviously in a > different time zone). So, since I started actively moderating, which > requires being awake, things have been pretty peaceful. I’m surprised it’s news to you that Ruben (among others) is attacking people personally; that’s something you could have learned from the previous moderators. > Another user is under moderation for incessant off-topic, hateful posts > as well as a lot of cross-posting (which we depend on the other > subscribers to help fight; some of his moderated messages were quoted > anyway due to cross-posting and/or CC'ing others). Good. > That's it. If someone attacks, harasses or is otherwise abusive towards > anyone, be it another subscriber or rms (let's not have elephants in > this room), they will be placed under moderation until the situation > cools down. This is not a place to discuss other people. This is a > place to discuss GNU. The previous moderation efforts failed in that > regard, and did so in a particularly biased manner. How did it fail? What do you suggest regarding elephants in this room? Who are you accusing of what, to be clear? I’m baffled that you can be so assertive and dismissive of the moderation work that was done before (which I can only guess was no fun!). I would have loved to read your answers to my other questions to better understand your viewpoint. > Your messages require moderator action simply because you're not > actually subscribed to the list. I have not silenced you but if you > want your messages to go through quicker, I invite you to subscribe. > You are welcome to continue to discuss whatever "governance" issues you > would like here, but we are under no obligation to cultivate that as the > new raison d'etre of gnu-misc-discuss nor to acknowledge it as carrying > any priority over any other discussion that takes place here. Sure, we’ll talk about governance (no quotes) as much as possible, meaning as much as the signal-to-noise ratio doesn’t prevent that. Governance is very much on-topic for this list. Thanks, Ludo’.
Re: list moderation
Ludovic Courtès writes: > A bit more than 24 hours later, two things have become clear to me: that > Mark and Carlos were indeed doing a good moderation job, and that by not > doing any moderation, you’ve opened the flood gates and silenced the > rest of us. > > In that time we got ~100 messages, the majority of which were written by > the same 3 people. Worse, many of those messages were personal attacks, > and many others were off-topic for this list. Don't misrepresent the situation. Ruben was placed under indefinite moderation for his attacks. The attacks took place overnight while I was asleep (he's obviously in a different time zone). So, since I started actively moderating, which requires being awake, things have been pretty peaceful. Another user is under moderation for incessant off-topic, hateful posts as well as a lot of cross-posting (which we depend on the other subscribers to help fight; some of his moderated messages were quoted anyway due to cross-posting and/or CC'ing others). That's it. If someone attacks, harasses or is otherwise abusive towards anyone, be it another subscriber or rms (let's not have elephants in this room), they will be placed under moderation until the situation cools down. This is not a place to discuss other people. This is a place to discuss GNU. The previous moderation efforts failed in that regard, and did so in a particularly biased manner. I will not place the list back under emergency moderation unless everyone collectively loses their minds. Everyone has a chance to prove themselves to be civil, and even those who have previously been unkind can have the chance to show that they can improve. Your messages require moderator action simply because you're not actually subscribed to the list. I have not silenced you but if you want your messages to go through quicker, I invite you to subscribe. You are welcome to continue to discuss whatever "governance" issues you would like here, but we are under no obligation to cultivate that as the new raison d'etre of gnu-misc-discuss nor to acknowledge it as carrying any priority over any other discussion that takes place here. -- -brandon
Re: list moderation
Hi again Brandon, Ludovic Courtès skribis: > I think Mark and Carlos have done a great job. I am happy that this > list was host to constructive discussions and not as toxic as the > private GNU lists. I am concerned that about the ability to continue > discussing constructively going forward. A bit more than 24 hours later, two things have become clear to me: that Mark and Carlos were indeed doing a good moderation job, and that by not doing any moderation, you’ve opened the flood gates and silenced the rest of us. In that time we got ~100 messages, the majority of which were written by the same 3 people. Worse, many of those messages were personal attacks, and many others were off-topic for this list. Brandon, I see what you’ve achieved, but could you please explain what your goal is? Thanks, Ludo’.
Re: list moderation
Since this is a GNU list, and as long as GNU policies are applied it doesn't matter who moderates it, so there is really no reason to further explain the decision. GNU mailing list policies have always been very lax, and very open. If you wish to continue the disucssion, feel free to do so but you are not in a position to claim that this was discourteous, or disappointment in how this was handled.
Re: list moderation
Le dimanche 3 novembre 2019, 22:34:04 CET Ludovic Courtès a écrit : > Hi Brandon, > > Brandon Invergo skribis: > > For the past month or so, every message to the list has been subject to > > moderation, so-called "emergency moderation". It has become clear that > > the moderation was being used in a biased manner. We have decided to > > remove Mark and Carlos as moderators/admins and to turn off the > > emergency moderation. We will not place any restriction on the topic of > > discussion beyond what is outlined in the pre-existing list guidelines. > > Who is “we” in “we have decided” above? I guess either him and the other new moderator, either some of the teams he’s part of and already noted the existence on some thread on this list. But given the context, the former would be more obvious, while the later more legitimatly understandable. > I think Mark and Carlos have done a great job. I am happy that this > list was host to constructive discussions and not as toxic as the > private GNU lists. I am concerned that about the ability to continue > discussing constructively going forward. I wished /ignore was more simple with common MUA so people who likes moderation can keep being as able discussing as in moderated environments. > I am also disappointed that you, Brandon, took the liberty to remove > those who had added you as a moderator. That looks, at best, > discourteous. I guess it depends where the “moderator power” (and) legitimacy comes from… Wait, who added them as moderators? I’m a bit lost now. > Can you explain how “moderation was being used in a biased manner”, > giving specific examples? I like specific examples. That strives for better formalization and rationalization of what is going on, what people want and what can be done. But this applies for all parties. As well as for “when what was toxic” (imho personal insults (against Charity principle (yet understandable because of emotions)) as against Sandra, the Medium poster (forgot the name) or rms, accusations (against hanlon razor (yet understandable because of disinformation)) as against rms and… probably others)) as for “when moderation was bad” (imho always, it can go from “shutting down a topic arbitrarily for everybody” to “censoring almost-spamers like Jean-Louis”, going through censoring Ruben Safir for being heated and sometimes insulting, or anyone for an opinion) as for “when did rms’ behavior undermine the empowerment of so many users” (as far as I heard, abort() joke, emacs virgin joke, “MIT episode”, and “women alienation” testimonies linked to twitter by Andy Wingo on his blog wingolog.org (“having personally had doubts about pedophilia harm and child consent several years ago” was only picked by someone external to the joint statement)… and nothing more? do we agree this is exhaustive (yet still unstatisfying to some) list? “being the chief in a non-democratic organization” and the frustration coming with it, too, maybe, I guess?).
Re: list moderation
Hi Brandon, Brandon Invergo skribis: > For the past month or so, every message to the list has been subject to > moderation, so-called "emergency moderation". It has become clear that > the moderation was being used in a biased manner. We have decided to > remove Mark and Carlos as moderators/admins and to turn off the > emergency moderation. We will not place any restriction on the topic of > discussion beyond what is outlined in the pre-existing list guidelines. Who is “we” in “we have decided” above? Can you explain how “moderation was being used in a biased manner”, giving specific examples? I think Mark and Carlos have done a great job. I am happy that this list was host to constructive discussions and not as toxic as the private GNU lists. I am concerned that about the ability to continue discussing constructively going forward. I am also disappointed that you, Brandon, took the liberty to remove those who had added you as a moderator. That looks, at best, discourteous. I’m looking forward to reading your explanations. Thanks, Ludo’.
Re: list moderation
Hi, On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 14:29 -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > Thanks to all of those that provided input into the list moderation > and censorship discussions. > > My moderation is certainly biased towards posters that write well, and > argue without attacking the original poster, and create an environment > for effective communication. Lots of people on this list were able to > do that and their posts were approved. These guidelines are > long-enshrined in the list description. Enforcement is up to the > volunteers who run the list. > > In all transparency I volunteered to moderate the list, because nobody > else was actively moderating, and Mark and I were worried about toxic > discussions derailing the conversations. Mark and I were given > moderator and admin access because we were trusted to do that. We are > long-time GNU Maintainers, and our goal was specific. You don't get > list moderator or admin access without that trust. I don't see that we > have abused that trust. > > We did alter the list description to include an updated description of > the kind of moderation that was going to happen, however it was for > all intents and purposes an extension of the existing rules that say > anything can be discussed. And even that only happened after we started discussions with Mike and Brandon on how to do moderation with the four of us. I was happy we were going to do this together and so I posted about it to the list to start the discussion about it and introduced Mike and Brandon to the team: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-11/msg7.html And I believe we had consensus on how to word some of that better after some on-list and off-list discussions. And were just about to do so. > I don't clearly understand why Brandon or Mike removed us from > volunteer moderation. If they want us to help out with the list again, > I'm happy to help. We engaged with them to discuss how we should > handle the moderation issue, and I thought we had achieved a consensus > on that. We were going to post about shortly, and effectively do what > Brandon is doing right now. I am happy we achieved consensus on how to handle moderation on this list and I do hope it works out better and makes the list a more productive place for discussions, but I am completely demotivated now to help out with that. > However, I'm disappointed that there has > been a sudden decision to remove us as volunteers. I think this comes > down to clearer roles and responsibilities in the GNU Project, which > is something we are all already talking about. It does add a nice meta-governance discussion theme to the list :) > All-in-all it doesn't change the end goals we are working towards. > > I encourage everyone to follow the GNU Kind communication guidelines > when posting. I encourage all of you to call out unkind behaviour. I > encourage all of you discuss about GNU Project governance while > avoiding specific discussions about people and their capabilities. I do certainly agree with that. Cheers, Mark
Re: list moderation
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 12:41 PM Brandon Invergo wrote: > For the past month or so, every message to the list has been subject to > moderation, so-called "emergency moderation". It has become clear that > the moderation was being used in a biased manner. We have decided to > remove Mark and Carlos as moderators/admins and to turn off the > emergency moderation. We will not place any restriction on the topic of > discussion beyond what is outlined in the pre-existing list guidelines. > > This is *not* an invitation for open flames. Please continue to abide > by the Kind Communication Guidelines. We will closely monitor the > discussion and we will take appropriate actions as necessary. Thanks to all of those that provided input into the list moderation and censorship discussions. My moderation is certainly biased towards posters that write well, and argue without attacking the original poster, and create an environment for effective communication. Lots of people on this list were able to do that and their posts were approved. These guidelines are long-enshrined in the list description. Enforcement is up to the volunteers who run the list. In all transparency I volunteered to moderate the list, because nobody else was actively moderating, and Mark and I were worried about toxic discussions derailing the conversations. Mark and I were given moderator and admin access because we were trusted to do that. We are long-time GNU Maintainers, and our goal was specific. You don't get list moderator or admin access without that trust. I don't see that we have abused that trust. We did alter the list description to include an updated description of the kind of moderation that was going to happen, however it was for all intents and purposes an extension of the existing rules that say anything can be discussed. I don't clearly understand why Brandon or Mike removed us from volunteer moderation. If they want us to help out with the list again, I'm happy to help. We engaged with them to discuss how we should handle the moderation issue, and I thought we had achieved a consensus on that. We were going to post about shortly, and effectively do what Brandon is doing right now. However, I'm disappointed that there has been a sudden decision to remove us as volunteers. I think this comes down to clearer roles and responsibilities in the GNU Project, which is something we are all already talking about. All-in-all it doesn't change the end goals we are working towards. I encourage everyone to follow the GNU Kind communication guidelines when posting. I encourage all of you to call out unkind behaviour. I encourage all of you discuss about GNU Project governance while avoiding specific discussions about people and their capabilities. Cheers, Carlos.
list moderation
Hi everyone, For the past month or so, every message to the list has been subject to moderation, so-called "emergency moderation". It has become clear that the moderation was being used in a biased manner. We have decided to remove Mark and Carlos as moderators/admins and to turn off the emergency moderation. We will not place any restriction on the topic of discussion beyond what is outlined in the pre-existing list guidelines. This is *not* an invitation for open flames. Please continue to abide by the Kind Communication Guidelines. We will closely monitor the discussion and we will take appropriate actions as necessary. -- -brandon
