Re: List posting rules
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 4:02 PM Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > No, or minimal moderation -- as has always been the case for GNU > lists. It is better to let a off-topic message through, and > communicate to the user of the case than to reject it. It is better > to ask the person to use a kinder tone than to reject a message. > > Moderation is hard, it is annoying, but the general rule is to always > let messages through. Spending the extra effort in creating a kind > environment, a hard, and long process, is a worth while goal -- even > if that means sometimes accepting messages that might "break the > rules"... Yup, that's what we agreed to with Mike Gerwtiz and Brandon Invergo's advice. I think it's the right way forward. Cheers, Carlos.
Re: List posting rules
> > All of those messages were censored in a biased impartial way, as they > > allowed other side to talk, but not the opposition. > > Please actually count how many mails actually got to the list for each > person. Right. There are just ~3 people who write more messages to the list each day than everybody else combined. High volume in itself isn't reason for rejecting messages. But when sending just one or two messages a day to the list they will all be accepted. The problem is that precisely the highly prolific writers also often sent messages that are clearly unkind and non-constructive. When I write email, I queue it up -- that means I can "send" several messages to a list in one day -- even if they are written over the period of a week. How much people write, or do not write is not a good metric for deciding on moderation, we all do our computing differently, we all communicate differently. I am not sure what the best solution to that is. No, or minimal moderation -- as has always been the case for GNU lists. It is better to let a off-topic message through, and communicate to the user of the case than to reject it. It is better to ask the person to use a kinder tone than to reject a message. Moderation is hard, it is annoying, but the general rule is to always let messages through. Spending the extra effort in creating a kind environment, a hard, and long process, is a worth while goal -- even if that means sometimes accepting messages that might "break the rules"...
Re: List posting rules
On 11/2/19 7:54 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > If your solution to "I broke the rules" is "post my messages anyway, so > I can get away with breaking the rules"... no thanks. fuck the rules -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
Re: List posting rules
I have been censored too, just to stop thread continuing I think. If I was unkind or too prolific (that sometimes happen) I’d like being told so. I could also apologize and explain then, and I hope a corrected error, among other uncorrected errors, could have on mind a better overall effect than one error less at all.
Re: List posting rules
Le samedi 2 novembre 2019, 20:01:24 CET Carlos O'Donell a écrit : > I don't see why I should not be a moderator. Everyone has some kind of > bias. Moderation is a difficult task. To begin with, indeed everybody is to be biased, in the end… but what kind of bias? Someone not having signed might as well be *anywhere* in the spectrum between the Joint statement and RMS himself. Hence this is less evidently biased, as anyone could be, in this —unfortunately heated— dispute be more “neutral”, less extreme or “biased” as you. > Brandon Invergo and Mike Gerwitz are also moderators, specifically to > help avoid this kind of bias. Afaik, this was a place of lax moderation, until then. *Adding* moderators is likely to go in the (until then denounced) direction of growing censorship, a direction that might be biased against one party or another. That could very well go in censorship escalation into muting everybody. Or maybe they might be less prone to censor? Afaiu, adding moderator is likely to make an inclusive OR of decisions, that is a sum of censorship. It would be reassuring to hear it’s going to be an AND, so it’s a *product* of censorship (you would agree on moderation and only censor those you both agree to put moderation on). > > For example, given that the declared purpose of this is list is to talk > > about governance, Sandra Loosemore's messages were in violation of the > > > following rule, and yet they were approved: > The purpose of this list is spelled out in the list description. > Sandra didn't post a discussion about governance, she didn't talk > about restructuring the GNU Project. She spoke only about existing > leadership. On a governance thread. And even so, then we can freely attack people if we’re not anymore talking about governance in the same mail (you should release more mails then), and discuss about governance however we want if we don’t talk about specific people, right?
Re: List posting rules
Le samedi 2 novembre 2019, 01:28:32 CET Samuel Thibault a écrit : > Alexandre François Garreau, le ven. 01 nov. 2019 19:23:40 +0100, a ecrit: > > Would be better if, like other mailing-list softwares I saw, we could > > be resent back the previous mail by asking the mailing-list software > > Even better, you can download archives as mbox from > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/ That’s a solution. A solution I already used. But not a better one. SMTP is way more standard and basic in email than mbox. And it will be way easier for any user to receive mail than to download and import an mbox file (many of them won’t even know what does this consist in). Thus, though technical solutions exist, they’re not sufficient to be considered a complete solution.
Re: List posting rules
Mark, those are just generalizations, if you wish to minimize flames, minimize it from your stand point without inflating accusations. Real moderation is public, it is not censorship. Censorship does not allow people to see information. That is what you do. In same cases of profanity I would agree to that, but what you are doing is not moderation. Let us come to the definition of what is "Moderator": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderator Definition of moderator 1 : one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or discussion: such as a : the chairman of a discussion group b : the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting c : the presiding officer of a Presbyterian governing body Thus moderator shall preside the discussion and not remove information so that nobody can see it. You are doing it wrong because you never learned what means to "moderate". Imagine a meeting of participants around the round table, they are speaking to each other. Now every person can hear each other. Moderator is similar like a president of a meeting, such would warn a person to stop with profanities, but even profanities could be heard. And information could be heard. What you are doing is far far from any moderation. To learn what is moderation, please see how a...@gnu.org is doing it. If we speak of character of being nonpartisan, each such moderator who cannot be nonpartisan shall go away. All what is written here is constructive proposal. It is teaching moderators to be moderators, not censors. What can you implement from that? Can you lead discussion without making general statements and inflate accusations? Can you follow up discussion such as statements from Sandra with the timely comment or remark that that she shall accurately provide facts for her statements? By asking such a question you would "moderate" the discussion, as you would lead the discussion towards constructive solution. Then maybe Sandra would tell about media accusations and somebody would tell about the facts, maybe both sides find the facts. Then you could as moderator close the topic and say that there were no shown facts and that shall topic shall be closed after some time. Then if anybody wish to raise again new question that relates to that same topic, you would allow the question to come in, but as moderator you would participate and point out the person to the closed topic, which was already discussed. And unless there are some new evidences that RMS would be guilty of crime, you would moderate (not delete information) and tell person in public that it is too much. All of these statements of mine are constructive proposals, teaching you what means to be moderator. See me comments below. * Mark Wielaard [2019-11-03 14:58]: > Hi DJ, > > On Sat, 2019-11-02 at 19:54 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > > If your solution to I broke the rules is post my messages anyway, so > > I can get away with breaking the rules... no thanks. > > > > If you have a problem with the moderation, that's between you and the > > moderators. The rest of us will wait until you can compose a posting > > that does not break the rules, to hear what you have to say. > > > > Moderators - please continue doing your job. > > I appreciate the public vote of confidence, but how we communicate > kindly and constructively with each other is something we should solve > together. I am glad you trust that we made the right call, but I can > certainly see how Marcel's opinion is somewhat different. That we have > to moderate is a problem. Problem is not that you have to moderate. Moderator as by the definition is very good position and is first person to lead discussion to come to the positive solution for both sides. What you are saying is that you are stopping information to pass through while you are being biased already, that is not moderation, that is censorship. > Some people do need a bit of help seeing why their messages are > unkind and why they should tone it down to make the conversation > pleasant and constructive. Such generalizations are inflating accusations. At least point out to somebody and say who is unkind, and what is specifically unkind. "tone" is subjective, make it objective. Conversation need not be pleasant neither constructive by each party. Obviously there are issues that are not pleasant to you, that is why you signed the joint statement to defame Dr. Richard Stallman. It was not pleasent to you to hear few jokes or some of his opinions. Now you are demanding that conversation is pleasant. Should it be pleasant for you? That is how I see that. What means "constructive"? Should it be only constructive for your viewpoint? You are subjective not objective. > I certainly see Marcel's problem. The moderators don't have time to > debug every individual message with each contributor. On the other > hand letting through repeatedly unkind and unconstructive message to > the list so all list members can help debug makes the
Re: List posting rules
Dear Carlos,
* Carlos O'Donell [2019-11-02 20:07]:
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 2:01 PM Dora Scilipoti wrote:
> > You, Carlos O'Donell, and your fellow censor Mark Wielaard, should NOT
> > be the moderators of this list. You are both signers of a public
> > document that calls for the removal of Richard Stallman as the leader of
> > GNU, namely the "Joint Statement." Therefore, your natural bias is to
> > accept messages that work towards your goal while rejecting those that
> > oppose it.
>
> I agree that I likely exhibit bias, to that end we have invited others
> to moderate.
>
> Brandon Invergo and Mike Gerwitz are also moderators, specifically to
> help avoid this kind of bias.
>
> I don't see why I should not be a moderator. Everyone has some kind of
> bias. Moderation is a difficult task.
>
> The goal is to keep the list discussions on-topic, governance should
> be about governance not people, and existing list rules should be
> followed.
In my opinion, on this list there are no people who are really nuts or
crazy.
Your censorship was for so many times by the principle to deny a
message with arguments that opposes message without arguments and
without facts. Did you ever think of that?
Your censorship is not moderation.
Please censor personal attacks and profanities.
Things that are not on topic, you should censor in the manner that
a...@gnu.org is doing, so that you tell that it is not on topic, and
tell why, and you tell that in public. I have seen people being
reasonable from both sides and recognizing what is better to be done.
Do not censor facts and arguments which are on topic.
Do not censor facts and arguments which are not on topic, but are
answer to other off-topic message which you have passed through. That
shows biased or non-impartial side.
Finally, those "rules" are ridiculous, as if the rules would be so
good, then subject of this conversation would not become censorship
and mailing list rules.
"Flaming is out of place." -- I propose that you remove that rule, as
it makes the mailing list and all participants hypocrites, because we
are flaming here per definition.
Small group of Guix leadership have published flame statement and
there was discussion about that. So if flaming is out of place, this
list cannot exist. RMS resigned and there are people wishing to kick
him out completely, and they express it so on his own GNU project and
mailing list -- so that is flaming. If you are having a rule that is
impossible to enforce, and which would be counter productive to
enforce it, remove the rule.
1 definition found
>From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (18 March 2015) [foldoc]:
flame
flamage
flaming
To rant, to speak or write incessantly and/or
rabidly on some relatively uninteresting subject or with a
patently ridiculous attitude or with hostility toward a
particular person or group of people. "Flame" is used as a
verb ("Don't flame me for this, but..."), a flame is a single
flaming message, and "flamage" /flay'm*j/ the content.
"Tit-for-tat" is not welcome. As this rule is very much subject to
interpretation of not publicly identified moderators (you identified
some of them in the email), this rule shall be removed.
Censor personal attacks. Do not censor facts and arguments.
Your interpretation of "tit-for-tat" could be wrong. Indication for me
to say so is that you censored already facts which were response to
emotional outbursts. Do not censor facts. Neither I say you should
censor emotional reactions.
"Repetition should not occur." -- this is nonsense, as people
participate in a mailing list, they are not archivers who are looking
over the archive of the mailing list to see what was repeated and what
not. Finally, multiple times it was shown that those who are flamers,
they have been allowed to repeat messages, but those who were sending
facts and arguments, they were censored. Thus this rule you better
take out. It is not functional.
"Before posting, wait a while, cool off, and think." -- this is total
nonsense and degradation of participants. You imply that you deal with
idiots.
As a so called moderator, it should not be yours to decide by what
speed somebody is thinking. Or shall we now moderate speed of thought
as well? Hahahahhaha.
That somebody is "cooled" or "not cooled" is also not subject of the
mailing list. If you remove profanities and personal attacks, you will
remove enough of that what was not cool. But don't imply you know what
other people think or feel or by which speed their thoughts or
writings shall be.
Don't imply that people do not think. That is negative rule. It should
be removed from:
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
"Restricting yourself to just one message a day to the list is not a
bad thing. " -- that is nonsense and shall be removed. By imposing
speed of thinking and speed of writing you are hindering speed of
communication and thus any solutions and
Re: List posting rules
* Mark Wielaard [2019-11-03 14:58]: > On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 11:52 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Jean Louis, le dim. 03 nov. 2019 11:02:38 +0100, a ecrit: > > > All of those messages were censored in a biased impartial way, as they > > > allowed other side to talk, but not the opposition. > > > > Please actually count how many mails actually got to the list for each > > person. > > Right. There are just ~3 people who write more messages to the list > each day than everybody else combined. High volume in itself isn't > reason for rejecting messages. But when sending just one or two > messages a day to the list they will all be accepted. The problem is > that precisely the highly prolific writers also often sent messages > that are clearly unkind and non-constructive. I am not sure what the > best solution to that is. That is over-generalization and generalization is character of the exact subject that was discussed on this mailing list in October and now November 2019. Generalization is the reason why RMS tends not to generalize people and not call them criminals for reasons of being associated to somebody who was already convicted criminal who have sent probably entirely willing girl to a professor which honor RMS tried to defend. RMS tried to stop generalizations in accusations. > Currently we moderate everything, because emergency moderation mode is > on. And I think that was a good decision given how heated some of the > debates have been. But it does give the impression of arbitrary > censorship, even though it only impacts a very low number of (highly > prolific) posters (which would have been put on moderation anyway after > having been warned) We could go back to only moderate new list member > postings and add a member verbosity threshold to place only prolific > posters on moderation. But then we need list members to help out more > making sure to point out unkind and non-constructive messages. Oh, now is "prolific" meant to be moderated for reasons of being prolific. * Overview of adj prolific The adj prolific has 2 senses (first 1 from tagged texts) 1. (1) fecund, fertile, prolific -- (intellectually productive; "a prolific writer"; "a fecund imagination") 2. prolific, fertile -- (bearing in abundance especially offspring; "flying foxes are extremely prolific"; "a prolific pear tree") I am not even sure that you wish to say what is the meaning of that word. In relation to GNU governance, mailing lists like this one shall NOT be moderate in the manner how you are doing it. That would be one part of GNU governance that should be solved before even attempting to solve GNU governance on a mailing list. Constructive proposal: remove yourself as moderator. Jean
Re: List posting rules
Hi DJ, On Sat, 2019-11-02 at 19:54 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > If your solution to "I broke the rules" is "post my messages anyway, so > I can get away with breaking the rules"... no thanks. > > If you have a problem with the moderation, that's between you and the > moderators. The rest of us will wait until you can compose a posting > that does not break the rules, to hear what you have to say. > > Moderators - please continue doing your job. I appreciate the public vote of confidence, but how we communicate kindly and constructively with each other is something we should solve together. I am glad you trust that we made the right call, but I can certainly see how Marcel's opinion is somewhat different. That we have to moderate is a problem. Some people do need a bit of help seeing why their messages are unkind and why they should tone it down to make the conversation pleasant and constructive. I certainly see Marcel's problem. The moderators don't have time to debug every individual message with each contributor. On the other hand letting through repeatedly unkind and unconstructive message to the list so all list members can help debug makes the mailinglist toxic pretty fast. I hope we can find a good middle ground by letting most messages through (which we really already do), even if they are unkind, and only stop accepting them after someone has been repeated warned that their messaging is not improving. Cheers, Mark
Re: List posting rules
Jean Louis, le dim. 03 nov. 2019 11:02:38 +0100, a ecrit: > All of those messages were censored in a biased impartial way, as they > allowed other side to talk, but not the opposition. Please actually count how many mails actually got to the list for each person. Samuel
Re: List posting rules
* Marcel [2019-11-02 22:11]: > On 11/3/19 2:01 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > I have indicated to Marcel that if he wishes to repost messages > > for review that the moderators (4 of us) are willing to review it > > again. > > You censored twelve of my messages. And 27 of mine. 12 you, 27 of me and how many others? Moderation by a...@gnu.org is open and in public, he points people if subject is off-topic or what is wrong, that is transparent moderation. All of those messages were censored in a biased impartial way, as they allowed other side to talk, but not the opposition. Jean
Re: List posting rules
Marcel writes: > I invite you to post _ALL_ my censored messages in chronological order, If your solution to "I broke the rules" is "post my messages anyway, so I can get away with breaking the rules"... no thanks. If you have a problem with the moderation, that's between you and the moderators. The rest of us will wait until you can compose a posting that does not break the rules, to hear what you have to say. Moderators - please continue doing your job.
Re: List posting rules
On 11/3/19 2:01 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > I agree that I likely exhibit bias, to that end we have invited others > to moderate. It is not a problem to be solved by the number of censors; censorship will always be abused by the censors, however many choose to participate. Pre-moderation is a euphemism for censorship and it deserves a place in RMS's personal anti-glossary and in the dustbin of reactionary history. > I don't see why I should not be a moderator. Everyone has some kind of > bias. Moderation is a difficult task. Censorship, if used at all, should be used for extremely serious cases, not to suit the personal agenda of the censors. Sadly--and you can open a history book and let it be the judge--it has often been used by petty dictators. To paraphrase Landier's 1997 essay on Internet censorship as written on Wikipedia's page on censorship: "...those who impose censorship must consider what they censor to be true, as individuals believing themselves to be correct would welcome the opportunity to disprove those with opposing views." > I have indicated to Marcel that if he wishes to repost messages for > review that the moderators (4 of us) are willing to review it again. You censored twelve of my messages. Indeed, you wrote me on 10/31/19 10:43am -0400 to say: "Please feel free to repost any messages your believe should not have been rejected. After this, I responded at 10/31/19, 11:18 PM +0700 with version two of my response to Sandra. It was rejected." My messages continued to be rejected after this, including version two, and later version three of my response to Sandra, which is the version posted by Dora, which you refer to in your post. > I have seen one repost by Marcel that was unkind, particularly with > his displeasure at being moderated. I invite you to post _ALL_ my censored messages in chronological order, together with your boilerplate rejection messages for each, and let the members of this list judge for themselves. You are also welcome to post _ALL_ private e-mails I sent the list owner address, as well as to Mark Weilaard and you both, asking you to tell me how my messages were unacceptable to the list, so I could censor myself and make them acceptable (something I cringe to even think I offered to do). My messages are still unanswered. I still have not been given the right of reply to Sandra's post. There was indeed one message that was unkind to you both, one of the very last if memory serves me right, it included the unkind text: "censorship is the refuge of mediocre minds". I stand by my words. You and your fellow censor not only systematically silenced dissent in this mailing list, you lied and continue to lie about it. Shame on you both sir. > Cheers, > Carlos. > Yours in freedom, Marcel
Re: List posting rules
Hi Sandra, On Sat, 2019-11-02 at 13:21 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 11/2/19 1:01 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > > The purpose of this list is spelled out in the list description. > > Sandra didn't post a discussion about governance, she didn't talk > > about restructuring the GNU Project. She spoke only about existing > > leadership. > > > > Governance discussions, those talking about governance models, and how > > to restructure GNU, should stay on topic, and should *not* talk about > > people and their capabilities. > > I apologize for straying from the list rules. I was not aware of > exactly what they were when I posted; I thought this was the public > equivalent of the private gnu-and-fsf list where I'd previously sent > similar remarks. No need to apologize at all. You didn't break any rules. The list rules are more like guidelines [*] that are interpreted in the most favorable terms for first time posters. The moderation/enforcement of the rules is only because we noticed in the past there are sometimes people posting multiple times a day repeatedly ignoring the guidelines creating a very hostile environment. > The list owners can delete my previous mails from the list archives, if > that seems appropriate. But in that case I hope the various list > messages accusing me of hysteria, lying, slander, etc would also be deleted. Some of those replies were completely disrespectful personal sexist attacks on you personally. As a moderator I apologize some of those were let through. Cheers, Mark [*] Just for reference, this is from the gnu-misc-discuss info page: Flaming is out of place. Tit-for-tat is not welcome. Repetition should not occur. Good READING and writing are expected. Before posting, wait a while, cool off, and think. So take your time to reply and think whether you actually have a new point to make, or if you are just restating your opinion again. If possible bundle your replies to several messages. Restricting yourself to just one message a day to the list is not a bad thing. Don't just reply to every message repeating your opinion or have a tit- for-tat discussion with just one member of the list. Also consider addressing the list directly and remove individuals from the CC to prevent a rapid fire back-and-forth between two people simply disagreeing without the messages even having made it to the list yet. Make sure you have read the kind communication guide: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html Some important points from that: Assume other participants are posting in good faith, even if you disagree with what they say. Please do not criticize people for wrongs that you only speculate they may have done; stick to what they actually say and actually do. Please respond to what people actually said, not to exaggerations of their views. Your criticism will not be constructive if it is aimed at a target other than their real views. If in a discussion someone brings up a tangent to the topic at hand, please keep the discussion on track by focusing on the current topic rather than the tangent. If you think the tangent is an important and pertinent issue, please bring it up as a separate discussion, with a Subject field to fit, and consider waiting for the end of the current discussion. And for GNU Project governance discussion threads, they should stay on topic and be strictly about governance and not about specific people and their respective abilities.
Re: List posting rules
On 11/2/19 1:01 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: The purpose of this list is spelled out in the list description. Sandra didn't post a discussion about governance, she didn't talk about restructuring the GNU Project. She spoke only about existing leadership. Governance discussions, those talking about governance models, and how to restructure GNU, should stay on topic, and should *not* talk about people and their capabilities. I apologize for straying from the list rules. I was not aware of exactly what they were when I posted; I thought this was the public equivalent of the private gnu-and-fsf list where I'd previously sent similar remarks. The list owners can delete my previous mails from the list archives, if that seems appropriate. But in that case I hope the various list messages accusing me of hysteria, lying, slander, etc would also be deleted. -Sandra
Re: List posting rules
"Carlos O'Donell" wrote: > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 2:01 PM Dora Scilipoti wrote: >> You, Carlos O'Donell, and your fellow censor Mark Wielaard, should NOT be >> the moderators of this list. You are both signers of a public document that >> calls for the removal of Richard Stallman as the leader of GNU, namely the >> "Joint Statement." Therefore, your natural bias is to accept messages that >> work towards your goal while rejecting those that oppose it. > > I agree that I likely exhibit bias, to that end we have invited others to > moderate. > > Brandon Invergo and Mike Gerwitz are also moderators, specifically to help > avoid this kind of bias. > > I don't see why I should not be a moderator. Everyone has some kind of bias. > Moderation is a difficult task. (Okay, someone has to voice it, let it be me.) Could you please invite Dora to become a co-moderator to help you with that difficult task? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: List posting rules
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 2:01 PM Dora Scilipoti wrote: > You, Carlos O'Donell, and your fellow censor Mark Wielaard, should NOT > be the moderators of this list. You are both signers of a public > document that calls for the removal of Richard Stallman as the leader of > GNU, namely the "Joint Statement." Therefore, your natural bias is to > accept messages that work towards your goal while rejecting those that > oppose it. I agree that I likely exhibit bias, to that end we have invited others to moderate. Brandon Invergo and Mike Gerwitz are also moderators, specifically to help avoid this kind of bias. I don't see why I should not be a moderator. Everyone has some kind of bias. Moderation is a difficult task. The goal is to keep the list discussions on-topic, governance should be about governance not people, and existing list rules should be followed. > For example, given that the declared purpose of this is list is to talk > about governance, Sandra Loosemore's messages were in violation of the > following rule, and yet they were approved: The purpose of this list is spelled out in the list description. Sandra didn't post a discussion about governance, she didn't talk about restructuring the GNU Project. She spoke only about existing leadership. Governance discussions, those talking about governance models, and how to restructure GNU, should stay on topic, and should *not* talk about people and their capabilities. > While another message, carefully drafted to refute her considerations in > the clearest possible way, was rejected: You just posted it, but it was a thread about list posting rules and a discussion of those rules, so it's on topic, and not repetition by Marcel, nor is it a thread that has degenerated into name calling, tit-for-tat, or flaming (thank you for that). I have indicated to Marcel that if he wishes to repost messages for review that the moderators (4 of us) are willing to review it again. I have seen one repost by Marcel that was unkind, particularly with his displeasure at being moderated. This is a GNU list, and I urge people to hold themselves to a high standard of writing, and decorum in discussion. Cheers, Carlos.
Re: List posting rules
On 11/01/2019 09:25 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > Sandra Loosemore posted her opinions for the first time. She didn't > repeat herself. You, Carlos O'Donell, and your fellow censor Mark Wielaard, should NOT be the moderators of this list. You are both signers of a public document that calls for the removal of Richard Stallman as the leader of GNU, namely the "Joint Statement." Therefore, your natural bias is to accept messages that work towards your goal while rejecting those that oppose it. For example, given that the declared purpose of this is list is to talk about governance, Sandra Loosemore's messages were in violation of the following rule, and yet they were approved: _ Tue, 29 Oct 2019 10:31:37 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: And for governance discussions, they should stay on topic and be about governance. Discussions about individuals and their capabilities are off topic. _ While another message, carefully drafted to refute her considerations in the clearest possible way, was rejected: Forwarded Message Subject: Re: Women and GNU and RMS (was Re: something else) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:31:48 +0700 From: Marcel To: Sandra Loosemore , gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org CC: Richard Stallman , Dora Scilipoti , Jean Louis [Yesterday most of my messages to this group were censored, including a new thread I tried to start to discuss the censorship, and two responses to Sandra's post. Here is version 3.] > I haven't seen anything resembling a "power grab", so by definition > I'm not on the list as participating in one. The way I read detractors is as follows: - We are volunteers at GNU. We are unhappy with RMS's leadership because he does not represent us and harms the project. We want the project to become a "bottom-up organization". Which I can simplify further to: - RMS is at the top, we are at the bottom. Remove RMS and put us at the top. Is this not the very definition of a power grab? > It has bothered me for a long time that there are so few women > participating in the GNU community. Identity politics can quickly subsume important common struggles and become a divide and rule strategy (sometimes it's the original intention even). In this particular case, it detracts from the main goal of GNU and the Free Software Movement (which is Free Software, by the way). If the phenomena of under-representation of women in tech was exclusive to GNU (or even more tellingly, to projects led by RMS), I would be willing to concede that this is a GNU (or RMS) problem, but it is not. If it is a problem, it is a problem in tech or more likely, a wider problem in society. > OTOH, it's clear to me that some women have indeed felt > threatened by RMS's behavior, been put off from participating by > offensive sexual comments and "jokes" from others in the free software > community, or felt that they were being belittled or ignored because > of their gender. The only thing that could be clear to you from the above—and given that you mention you did not feel threatened by RMS personally—is whatever anyone _CLAIMS_ happened. So far, I have not seen any evidence nor have I seen any alleged "victims" seek recourse in a court of law. What I have seen is a lynch mob phenomenon. I will oppose this kind of lynch mob, whether it pertains to "witches" being burned at the stake or RMS being libeled and defamed by a group of people trying to ruin his life. > And then there were RMS's disgusting public comments... (I will not re-post your slander) If you are complaining about the "public image" disaster for GNU, why do you seek to bring it up again repeating the mischaracterizations ? These were a series of mischaracterizations and slanders of comments made by RMS in is personal capacity. > IMO, to regain control of our public image, I think we have to take > some explicit and public steps to disassociate the GNU project from > RMS's comments. If the CEO of a corporation made such controversial > and offensive statements, the board would likely demand his immediate > resignation as part of damage control. Not everyone may share your opinion of throwing RMS under the bus as damage control; I certainly do not. The GNU project is by default disassociated from what RMS or anyone else in the GNU project says in their personal capacity. > I think the FSF and GNU maintainers collectively have a similar > responsibility as custodians of the GNU project, I think that the FSF and GNU maintainers should have similar responsibilities as other volunteers in the project: in your example maintainers should have the responsibility to maintain software packages; in the case of translators, to translate text; etc. The word "custodian" brings nightmarish religious war imagery to mind. > and I do think RMS needs to resign for the good of the project. Let me rephrase that
Re: List posting rules
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:25:17AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 9:20 AM Dora Scilipoti wrote: > > Please note that the message posted by a woman on Oct 30 contains a > > repetition of what we all have already read on dishonest media. > > Sandra Loosemore posted her opinions for the first time. She didn't > repeat herself. She did actually. She repeated the same lie over and over again in the same message. That is repeating yourself... Then repeating the same lie in the follow up a message and embellishing it with more falsehoods and half-truths compounds the sin. When you purposely cherry pick quotes and misrespent the contex of statment and actions of an indivdidual and then misrepresent the importance of those quote and reframe them for your ambitions, that is ***willfull*** slander. It is an avarot against man and God, and a sinful act. Cheers > > Cheers, > Carlos. -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
Re: List posting rules
Alexandre François Garreau, le ven. 01 nov. 2019 19:23:40 +0100, a ecrit: > Would be better if, like other mailing-list softwares I saw, we could > be resent back the previous mail by asking the mailing-list software Even better, you can download archives as mbox from https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/ Samuel
Re: List posting rules
Le vendredi 1 novembre 2019, 16:23:28 CET Ruben Safir a écrit : > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:25:17AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 9:20 AM Dora Scilipoti wrote: > > > Please note that the message posted by a woman on Oct 30 contains a > > > repetition of what we all have already read on dishonest media. > > > > Sandra Loosemore posted her opinions for the first time. She didn't > > repeat herself. > > She did actually. She repeated the say lie over and over again in the > say message. That is repeating yourself... I think the rule is about posting several messages (that repeat one each other). That’d better be clarified.
Re: List posting rules
Le vendredi 1 novembre 2019, 14:09:23 CET Dora Scilipoti a écrit : > On 11/01/2019 07:39 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > Ruben is a prolific poster who has already made his case that all this > > is just falsehoods and defamation. We are just going to have to agree > > to disagree on that. > > Well, I had never read Ruben's case before, because I joined this list > later (and my subscription request was delayed by almost five days, by > the way.) That may also be the case of the person he is responding to, > or the case of the person his message is related to, whose first and > only post to this list seems to be the one sent on Oct 30. Given that > this is a new relaunch of the list, repetition every now and then may > actually be necessary. +1 Yet mailing-list archives may be a solution in this kind of case. Though not everybody might be willing to go dig up there. Would be better if, like other mailing-list softwares I saw, we could be resent back the previous mail by asking the mailing-list software (and that could allow to answer these messages, without making a new thread)… maybe even by querying subjects matching a certain regexp… > Simply repeating your opinion over and over > > > again, while personally attacking the people you don't agree with, > > does not make for a very pleasant discussion. > > Please note that the message posted by a woman on Oct 30 contains a > repetition of what we all have already read on dishonest media. I think it was about *personal* repetition. Because for instance Jean Louis posted a lot (like more than a half-dozen) several-pages-long messages stating the same thing at short intervals. So it likely applies to a single individual repeating oneself, not to several individual saying the same (thus likely expressing it differently, and certainly adding the information that they too support that view). However like you said before, repetition may be useful for newcomers and different thread (when no-newcomers will ignore what have been said). But for these case I think private sending of such repeated information could do, without bloating the list with redundant information, and that wouldn’t be enforceable or impedable by any moderation. Then, adressed individuals could, privately, without bloating, answer that they learnt something, or that they already new and that message was useless, for good sender acknowledgment to progressively learn to become more effective.
Re: List posting rules
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 12:39:34PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Dora, > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:32:20PM -0400, Dora Scilipoti wrote: > > On 10/31/2019 09:01 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > > Please follow the rules of this list. Repetition should not happen. > > > You have made your case. > > > > It's no repetition. Ruben is responding specifically to a statement. > > Ruben is a prolific poster who has already made his case that all this > is just falsehoods and defamation. We are just going to have to agree > to disagree on that. Simply repeating your opinion over and over > again, while personally attacking the people you don't agree with, > does not make for a very pleasant discussion. > The conversation was unplesant the MINUTE RMS was made homeless because of lies coming from fanatics. That is not an opinion, that is a fact based on the record. > This list has slightly different posting rules than most other GNU > lists. Which are often completely open to anyone, or private with > restricted membership. We believed neither is ideal for a discussion > on GNU governance issues. So we are experimenting with a lightly > moderated list to have that discussion. > > After various GNU maintainers and developers expressed a desire to > discuss GNU governance issues: > https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ > We discussed with various people and the FSF what a good space would > be for that. Since this mailinglist already is about "serious > discussion of freed software, the GNU Project, the GNU Manifesto, and > their implications" it seemed a good place to do that, especially > since it already had posting rules that seemed compatible "Flaming is > out of place. Tit-for-tat is not welcome. Repetition should not > occur. Good READING and writing are expected. Before posting, wait a > while, cool off, and think.". > > Carlos and I discussed with the FSF and Karl, who normally moderates > this mailinglist, whether we could use the list for this discussion > and moderate it. > > I see we somehow failed to post the announcement about that to this > list itself, it somehow only got out to various other lists where > people had expressed an interest in an open GNU governance. That was > obviously a mistake, apologies. > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-10/msg00147.html > > That message also explains the rules for GNU governance related theads > that you had a question about better than how I summarized it earlies. > > These are the current posting guidelines, now also on the > gnu-misc-discuss info page: > > Flaming is out of place. Tit-for-tat is not welcome. Repetition > should not occur. > > Good READING and writing are expected. Before posting, wait a while, > cool off, and think. > > So take your time to reply and think whether you actually have a new > point to make, or if you are just restating your opinion again. If > possible bundle your replies to several messages. Restricting yourself > to just one message a day to the list is not a bad thing. > > Don't just reply to every message repeating your opinion or have a tit- > for-tat discussion with just one member of the list. Also consider > addressing the list directly and remove individuals from the CC to > prevent a rapid fire back-and-forth between two people simply > disagreeing without the messages even having made it to the list yet. > > Make sure you have read the kind communication guide: > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html > > Some important points from that: Assume other participants are posting > in good faith, even if you disagree with what they say. Please do not > criticize people for wrongs that you only speculate they may have done; > stick to what they actually say and actually do. Please respond to what > people actually said, not to exaggerations of their views. Your > criticism will not be constructive if it is aimed at a target other > than their real views. If in a discussion someone brings up a tangent > to the topic at hand, please keep the discussion on track by focusing > on the current topic rather than the tangent. If you think the tangent > is an important and pertinent issue, please bring it up as a separate > discussion, with a Subject field to fit, and consider waiting for the > end of the current discussion. > > And for GNU Project governance discussion threads, they should stay > on topic and be strictly about governance and not about specific > people and their respective abilities. > > In general we don't have to enforce this very strictly. There have > only been a few people who posted similar messages multiple times a > day that we have rejected and asked to tone it down. There has been > one thread which we believed spiraled out of control pretty quickly > and that we have killed. In that case I posted a message to the list > explaining why (and Carlos then repeated that in the
Re: List posting rules
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:25:17AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 9:20 AM Dora Scilipoti wrote: > > Please note that the message posted by a woman on Oct 30 contains a > > repetition of what we all have already read on dishonest media. > > Sandra Loosemore posted her opinions for the first time. She didn't > repeat herself. She did actually. She repeated the say lie over and over again in the say message. That is repeating yourself... Cheers > > Cheers, > Carlos. -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
Re: List posting rules
* Carlos O'Donell [2019-11-01 14:27]: > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 9:20 AM Dora Scilipoti wrote: > > Please note that the message posted by a woman on Oct 30 contains a > > repetition of what we all have already read on dishonest media. > > Sandra Loosemore posted her opinions for the first time. She didn't > repeat herself. > > Cheers, > Carlos. That does not imply she or other people shall not receive answers or that answers are forbidden because answers repeat the same facts. No logic there, sorry. People can subscribe earlier or later. And moderator's job should not be to police who said what at which time and was it once or two times.
Re: List posting rules
On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 9:20 AM Dora Scilipoti wrote: > Please note that the message posted by a woman on Oct 30 contains a > repetition of what we all have already read on dishonest media. Sandra Loosemore posted her opinions for the first time. She didn't repeat herself. Cheers, Carlos.
Re: List posting rules
On 11/01/2019 07:39 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Ruben is a prolific poster who has already made his case that all this > is just falsehoods and defamation. We are just going to have to agree > to disagree on that. Well, I had never read Ruben's case before, because I joined this list later (and my subscription request was delayed by almost five days, by the way.) That may also be the case of the person he is responding to, or the case of the person his message is related to, whose first and only post to this list seems to be the one sent on Oct 30. Given that this is a new relaunch of the list, repetition every now and then may actually be necessary. I haven't checked the dates, but another reason that I hadn't read all of his posts may be that due to moderation, because the messages are "released" all at once (that is, when the moderator wakes up in the morning and at best some other time during the day), thus making it difficult and time consuming to read them all. Simply repeating your opinion over and over > again, while personally attacking the people you don't agree with, > does not make for a very pleasant discussion. Please note that the message posted by a woman on Oct 30 contains a repetition of what we all have already read on dishonest media. She even clearly says that she hasn't personally had any unpleasant experiences with RMS, on the contrary, she testifies that he --long before the feminist fever was even born-- gave her a job. But then she proceeds to insult the dignity of Richard Stallman repeating a false statement she picked up from the media. Namely, his "defending sexual exploitation of minors." That is a lie. There are other serious publications that have clearly shown that that is false, but she picked from the bad ones to serve her purpose of denigration by using repetition. > This list has slightly different posting rules than most other GNU > lists. Which are often completely open to anyone, or private with > restricted membership. We believed neither is ideal for a discussion > on GNU governance issues. So we are experimenting with a lightly > moderated list to have that discussion. I went through the archives of this list back to 2012, and I saw no flame wars up to then. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be an urgent need for moderation. Under the current peaceful circumstances, messages should be "released" as soon as they are posted, and only spam should be deleted. So why preventive moderation? Is it that you don't trust people from the community? Or you trust some of them and not others? I see that you have finally let pass Marcel's messages. It was about time. -- Dora Scilipoti GNU Education Team gnu.org/education
