Re: Moderation

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

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

[Nathan Sidwell]

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

[Mike Gerwitz]

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

[Nathan Sidwell]

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
.  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

Aw: Re: Moderation

[Kim Lee]

 

 

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

[Mark Wielaard]

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

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   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.

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., there’s no delay between their ‘Date’ 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

[Ludovic Courtès]

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
> .  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

[Mike Gerwitz]

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

[Mike Gerwitz]

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

[nylxs]

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

[orbulon]

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

[nylxs]

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

[Jean Louis]

* 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

[Daniel Pocock]

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
>> .  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

[Mike Gerwitz]

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
>> .  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

[Carlos O'Donell]

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

[Jean Louis]

* 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
> .  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