Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 9:42 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > El dimecres, 9 de setembre de 2020, a les 11:00:21 CEST, Ben Cooksley va > escriure: > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 7:43 AM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > > > El dimarts, 25 d’agost de 2020, a les 23:28:28 CEST, Albert Astals Cid > va > > > escriure: > > > > So it seems there was some agreement that is something that could > > > improve but we didn't 100% agree on what to do. I've scheduled an > Akademy > > > BoF, hopefully we can reach to a conclusion there. > > > > > > > > > https://community.kde.org/Akademy/2020/Tuesday#Room_02_-_8th_September > > > > > > Summary of the discussion at https://share.kde.org/s/PeFRH82FmFgDrep > > > > > > I'll start contacting people about doing work for several points > probably > > > tomorrow :) > > > > > > > Thanks for the detailed summary from the BoF Albert, it's appreciated. > > > > Responding to some of those points with my Sysadmin hat on: > > > > > Enable archives on all the mailing lists that don't have it enabled > > > > We should probably look at backfilling the archives for those lists as > > well, given some of them are the older lists that document much of the > > history of the KDE project (and should therefore be as best preserved as > > possible) > > Yes we should try backfilling, but what we discussed and agreed is that > this should not be a blocker. > > The more time we go without archives, the more those archives will be > incomplete. > > So if we can't back fill the archives in X time, we just need to accept > our loses and enable the archives. > We can always backfill after enabling archiving, although it is easier if we have them to start with. (That is in effect what I did recently with the merger of kde-distro-packagers into distributions) > > > > > > Where did the archives of the recently disabled/archive mailing lists > go? > > Still publicly available? > > > > These archives should all still be accessible at > > https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/$listname/ > > Good :) > > > > > > Ask sysadmins if we can have a text file in invent... > > > > Would it help if we created a team at https://invent.kde.org/teams/ for > > this, to allow you to make use of the snippets/wiki functionality of > Gitlab? > > This needs more refining, i guess let's create the list of owners first > and once we have that discuss it there? > Sure thing. > > Cheers, > Albert > Cheers, Ben > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Albert > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Ben > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Albert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Albert > > > > > > > > > > [1] yes, i know they are not the same, but since one is a subset of > > > the other, let's pretend they are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
El dimecres, 9 de setembre de 2020, a les 11:00:21 CEST, Ben Cooksley va escriure: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 7:43 AM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > El dimarts, 25 d’agost de 2020, a les 23:28:28 CEST, Albert Astals Cid va > > escriure: > > > So it seems there was some agreement that is something that could > > improve but we didn't 100% agree on what to do. I've scheduled an Akademy > > BoF, hopefully we can reach to a conclusion there. > > > > > > https://community.kde.org/Akademy/2020/Tuesday#Room_02_-_8th_September > > > > Summary of the discussion at https://share.kde.org/s/PeFRH82FmFgDrep > > > > I'll start contacting people about doing work for several points probably > > tomorrow :) > > > > Thanks for the detailed summary from the BoF Albert, it's appreciated. > > Responding to some of those points with my Sysadmin hat on: > > > Enable archives on all the mailing lists that don't have it enabled > > We should probably look at backfilling the archives for those lists as > well, given some of them are the older lists that document much of the > history of the KDE project (and should therefore be as best preserved as > possible) Yes we should try backfilling, but what we discussed and agreed is that this should not be a blocker. The more time we go without archives, the more those archives will be incomplete. So if we can't back fill the archives in X time, we just need to accept our loses and enable the archives. > > > Where did the archives of the recently disabled/archive mailing lists go? > Still publicly available? > > These archives should all still be accessible at > https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/$listname/ Good :) > > > Ask sysadmins if we can have a text file in invent... > > Would it help if we created a team at https://invent.kde.org/teams/ for > this, to allow you to make use of the snippets/wiki functionality of Gitlab? This needs more refining, i guess let's create the list of owners first and once we have that discuss it there? Cheers, Albert > > > > Cheers, > > Albert > > > > Cheers, > Ben > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Albert > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Albert > > > > > > > > [1] yes, i know they are not the same, but since one is a subset of > > the other, let's pretend they are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 7:43 AM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > El dimarts, 25 d’agost de 2020, a les 23:28:28 CEST, Albert Astals Cid va > escriure: > > So it seems there was some agreement that is something that could > improve but we didn't 100% agree on what to do. I've scheduled an Akademy > BoF, hopefully we can reach to a conclusion there. > > > > https://community.kde.org/Akademy/2020/Tuesday#Room_02_-_8th_September > > Summary of the discussion at https://share.kde.org/s/PeFRH82FmFgDrep > > I'll start contacting people about doing work for several points probably > tomorrow :) > Thanks for the detailed summary from the BoF Albert, it's appreciated. Responding to some of those points with my Sysadmin hat on: > Enable archives on all the mailing lists that don't have it enabled We should probably look at backfilling the archives for those lists as well, given some of them are the older lists that document much of the history of the KDE project (and should therefore be as best preserved as possible) > Where did the archives of the recently disabled/archive mailing lists go? Still publicly available? These archives should all still be accessible at https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/$listname/ > Ask sysadmins if we can have a text file in invent... Would it help if we created a team at https://invent.kde.org/teams/ for this, to allow you to make use of the snippets/wiki functionality of Gitlab? > Cheers, > Albert > Cheers, Ben > > > > > Cheers, > > Albert > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Albert > > > > > > [1] yes, i know they are not the same, but since one is a subset of > the other, let's pretend they are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
El dimarts, 25 d’agost de 2020, a les 23:28:28 CEST, Albert Astals Cid va escriure: > So it seems there was some agreement that is something that could improve but > we didn't 100% agree on what to do. I've scheduled an Akademy BoF, hopefully > we can reach to a conclusion there. > > https://community.kde.org/Akademy/2020/Tuesday#Room_02_-_8th_September Summary of the discussion at https://share.kde.org/s/PeFRH82FmFgDrep I'll start contacting people about doing work for several points probably tomorrow :) Cheers, Albert > > Cheers, > Albert > > > > > Cheers, > > Albert > > > > [1] yes, i know they are not the same, but since one is a subset of the > > other, let's pretend they are. > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
El dimecres, 26 d’agost de 2020, a les 3:16:13 CEST, Valorie Zimmerman va escriure: > Unfortunately 9 UTC = 2 am here. But I will submit some notes about it. -v Then it's a good thing i put it at 17UTC and not 9 UTC ;) Cheers, Albert > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 2:28 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > El dijous, 23 de juliol de 2020, a les 0:31:29 CEST, Albert Astals Cid va > > escriure: > > > Dear Community, > > > > > > One important part of mailing lists being healthy is > > owners/moderators[1]. > > > > > > They moderate the lists, they help users that want to > > subscribe/unsubscribe but don't know how to, they enact emergency > > moderation in the very very seldom case that it is needed, etc. > > > > > > So to keep our mailing lists healthy we need to be sure to have healthy > > list owners. > > > > > > In plural, more than one, because from time to time, we go on vacation > > and the list duties still need taking care of. > > > > > > For that I'd like to enact this policy: > > > > > > Mailing lists should have at least 2 active owners, ideally 3 > > [Obviously exceptions apply, like if we just started a mailing list to > > coordinate translators for a language that has no translation in KDE yet, > > we'd probably have no way to get 2 list owners] > > > > > > One keyword in that sentence is "active". > > > > > > Mailing list ownership/moderation un-activity is hard to detect. > > > > > > One way to potentially detect it, is by those summaries that sysadmin > > sends periodically for lists with lots of mails to moderate, but that > > doesn't cover all the cases. > > > > > > For example, it's possible that a mailing list has 2 owners and only one > > of them is inactive, since the other one is keeping the list in working > > condition we don't see it as a problem, but if that person goes on holiday, > > then it suddenly is. > > > > > > For that I'd like to enact this policy sub-point: > > > > > > Mailing list owners will be contacted every year asking if they are > > still active and if they want to continue being list owner or if they'd > > prefer we find a substitute. > > > > > > If they say "please find a substitute" or fail to answer in a given time > > frame (I'd say a month is fair), they will be removed as owners and in case > > the "at least 2 active owners, ideally 3" policy is broken we'll find a new > > person. > > > > > > Does that sound something like we could agree on? > > > > > > Then the big question is "who will do this work?" Because it seems quite > > a bit of work (albeit only once a year). I would suggest the Community > > Working Group does this, as it's a way to keep our community healthy, but i > > understand it's quite some work, so i volunteer to do it if the CWG doesn't > > feel this is a task they want to take on. > > > > > > Things I'm missing? > > > > > > Improvement suggestions? > > > > So it seems there was some agreement that is something that could improve > > but we didn't 100% agree on what to do. I've scheduled an Akademy BoF, > > hopefully we can reach to a conclusion there. > > > > https://community.kde.org/Akademy/2020/Tuesday#Room_02_-_8th_September > > > > Cheers, > > Albert > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Albert > > > > > > [1] yes, i know they are not the same, but since one is a subset of the > > other, let's pretend they are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
Unfortunately 9 UTC = 2 am here. But I will submit some notes about it. -v On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 2:28 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > El dijous, 23 de juliol de 2020, a les 0:31:29 CEST, Albert Astals Cid va > escriure: > > Dear Community, > > > > One important part of mailing lists being healthy is > owners/moderators[1]. > > > > They moderate the lists, they help users that want to > subscribe/unsubscribe but don't know how to, they enact emergency > moderation in the very very seldom case that it is needed, etc. > > > > So to keep our mailing lists healthy we need to be sure to have healthy > list owners. > > > > In plural, more than one, because from time to time, we go on vacation > and the list duties still need taking care of. > > > > For that I'd like to enact this policy: > > > > Mailing lists should have at least 2 active owners, ideally 3 > [Obviously exceptions apply, like if we just started a mailing list to > coordinate translators for a language that has no translation in KDE yet, > we'd probably have no way to get 2 list owners] > > > > One keyword in that sentence is "active". > > > > Mailing list ownership/moderation un-activity is hard to detect. > > > > One way to potentially detect it, is by those summaries that sysadmin > sends periodically for lists with lots of mails to moderate, but that > doesn't cover all the cases. > > > > For example, it's possible that a mailing list has 2 owners and only one > of them is inactive, since the other one is keeping the list in working > condition we don't see it as a problem, but if that person goes on holiday, > then it suddenly is. > > > > For that I'd like to enact this policy sub-point: > > > > Mailing list owners will be contacted every year asking if they are > still active and if they want to continue being list owner or if they'd > prefer we find a substitute. > > > > If they say "please find a substitute" or fail to answer in a given time > frame (I'd say a month is fair), they will be removed as owners and in case > the "at least 2 active owners, ideally 3" policy is broken we'll find a new > person. > > > > Does that sound something like we could agree on? > > > > Then the big question is "who will do this work?" Because it seems quite > a bit of work (albeit only once a year). I would suggest the Community > Working Group does this, as it's a way to keep our community healthy, but i > understand it's quite some work, so i volunteer to do it if the CWG doesn't > feel this is a task they want to take on. > > > > Things I'm missing? > > > > Improvement suggestions? > > So it seems there was some agreement that is something that could improve > but we didn't 100% agree on what to do. I've scheduled an Akademy BoF, > hopefully we can reach to a conclusion there. > > https://community.kde.org/Akademy/2020/Tuesday#Room_02_-_8th_September > > Cheers, > Albert > > > > > Cheers, > > Albert > > > > [1] yes, i know they are not the same, but since one is a subset of the > other, let's pretend they are. > > > > > > > > > > > -- http://about.me/valoriez - pronouns: she/her
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
El dijous, 23 de juliol de 2020, a les 0:31:29 CEST, Albert Astals Cid va escriure: > Dear Community, > > One important part of mailing lists being healthy is owners/moderators[1]. > > They moderate the lists, they help users that want to subscribe/unsubscribe > but don't know how to, they enact emergency moderation in the very very > seldom case that it is needed, etc. > > So to keep our mailing lists healthy we need to be sure to have healthy list > owners. > > In plural, more than one, because from time to time, we go on vacation and > the list duties still need taking care of. > > For that I'd like to enact this policy: > > Mailing lists should have at least 2 active owners, ideally 3 [Obviously > exceptions apply, like if we just started a mailing list to coordinate > translators for a language that has no translation in KDE yet, we'd probably > have no way to get 2 list owners] > > One keyword in that sentence is "active". > > Mailing list ownership/moderation un-activity is hard to detect. > > One way to potentially detect it, is by those summaries that sysadmin sends > periodically for lists with lots of mails to moderate, but that doesn't cover > all the cases. > > For example, it's possible that a mailing list has 2 owners and only one of > them is inactive, since the other one is keeping the list in working > condition we don't see it as a problem, but if that person goes on holiday, > then it suddenly is. > > For that I'd like to enact this policy sub-point: > > Mailing list owners will be contacted every year asking if they are still > active and if they want to continue being list owner or if they'd prefer we > find a substitute. > > If they say "please find a substitute" or fail to answer in a given time > frame (I'd say a month is fair), they will be removed as owners and in case > the "at least 2 active owners, ideally 3" policy is broken we'll find a new > person. > > Does that sound something like we could agree on? > > Then the big question is "who will do this work?" Because it seems quite a > bit of work (albeit only once a year). I would suggest the Community Working > Group does this, as it's a way to keep our community healthy, but i > understand it's quite some work, so i volunteer to do it if the CWG doesn't > feel this is a task they want to take on. > > Things I'm missing? > > Improvement suggestions? So it seems there was some agreement that is something that could improve but we didn't 100% agree on what to do. I've scheduled an Akademy BoF, hopefully we can reach to a conclusion there. https://community.kde.org/Akademy/2020/Tuesday#Room_02_-_8th_September Cheers, Albert > > Cheers, > Albert > > [1] yes, i know they are not the same, but since one is a subset of the > other, let's pretend they are. > > >
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
Hi Ingo, Le 2020-07-27 à 03:58, Ingo Klöcker a écrit : On Sonntag, 26. Juli 2020 18:31:08 CEST Philippe Cloutier wrote: An even bigger question, I'm afraid. When nobody steps up, what would we do? I wouldn't mind "moderating" this list today, for instance, since I found the time to read it. But I for one would not *commit* myself to moderate it or any other; I just don't have the required availability and if I had, I wouldn't guarantee I would remain available. I'm sorry, but I have the feeling that you are making too much of a fuss about this. Maybe you are misunderstanding what "moderating" entails. Or maybe I misunderstood for years what moderation of a mailing list entails. I am owner of one mailing list and moderator of another. Moderation of the second mailing list is restricted to the moderation of posts that are held for moderation mostly because those post come from unsubscribed senders (99 % of this is SPAM). I'm not even subscribed to the second mailing list. I don't see moderation of legit posts (i.e. posts that are not held for moderation) as my task. This kind of moderation costs almost no time. I have never been subscribed to more than 1 kde.org mailing list, so I am not knowledgeable about the situation of KDE's mailing lists. My advice was general, and for sure, if by "moderating" we mean "filtering spam", the situation is different, but I think a decentralized approach will help either way, adapting to any situation. The policy does not refer to moderation, but to "active owners". If the problem is unclear, clarifying what an "active owner" is could help. In any case, it's not moderating a single mail which is a problem. The problem comes with volume. If moderating all mailing lists would cost almost no time and if we considered moderating as simply filtering spam, the policy's proponent could simply volunteer for all mailing lists and convince pretty much any 1 or 2 extra contributors to do the same to achieve the same benefits. If some moderators feel that a single reply constitutes "much of a fuss", I am afraid that sending all moderators regular mails requiring each of them to take action each time would be perceived as way too much of a fuss. If the issue really comes down to a lack of moderators or contributors not being aware that the number of moderators is insufficient, then simply editing https://community.kde.org/Infrastructure/Mailing-Lists encouraging subscribers to volunteer (and hopefully telling them how to do so) would surely already make quite a difference. Regards, Ingo -- Philippe Cloutier http://www.philippecloutier.com
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
Hi Valorie, On Dienstag, 28. Juli 2020 04:37:32 CEST Valorie Zimmerman wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:59 AM Ingo Klöcker wrote: > > On Sonntag, 26. Juli 2020 18:31:08 CEST Philippe Cloutier wrote: > > > An even bigger question, I'm afraid. When nobody steps up, what would we > > > do? I wouldn't mind "moderating" this list today, for instance, since I > > > found the time to read it. But I for one would not *commit* myself to > > > moderate it or any other; I just don't have the required availability > > > and if I had, I wouldn't guarantee I would remain available. > > > > I'm sorry, but I have the feeling that you are making too much of a fuss > > about > > this. Maybe you are misunderstanding what "moderating" entails. Or maybe I > > misunderstood for years what moderation of a mailing list entails. > > > > I am owner of one mailing list and moderator of another. Moderation of the > > second mailing list is restricted to the moderation of posts that are held > > for > > moderation mostly because those post come from unsubscribed senders (99 % > > of > > this is SPAM). I'm not even subscribed to the second mailing list. I don't > > see > > moderation of legit posts (i.e. posts that are not held for moderation) as > > my > > task. This kind of moderation costs almost no time. > > It's true that it costs each of us listowners/moderators "no time" per > list. Albert's point is what happens when such people disappear? While it > may seem like easy work that "anyone" can do, it can be like people > throwing litter into the trashcan instead of into the street. Each such act > takes a mere second, but when it is not done, there are mounds of garbage > (spam). > > If all of us listowner/moderators see ourselves as part of the list *team*, > then we can cover for one another, and recruit new team members when > necessary. I don't see this as a "fuss" but more about turning a small > problem into a small plus for the KDE community. What I perceived as a "fuss" was Philippe's proposals about measuring moderator activity, setting a time limit, marking unmoderated relayed messages, etc. I'd prefer a much more down-to-earth approach and I can see a regular (e.g. quarter-yearly) message to moderators to check whether they are still active and a mailing list for moderators as useful tools. Regards, Ingo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
Hi Ingo, On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:59 AM Ingo Klöcker wrote: > On Sonntag, 26. Juli 2020 18:31:08 CEST Philippe Cloutier wrote: > > An even bigger question, I'm afraid. When nobody steps up, what would we > > do? I wouldn't mind "moderating" this list today, for instance, since I > > found the time to read it. But I for one would not *commit* myself to > > moderate it or any other; I just don't have the required availability > > and if I had, I wouldn't guarantee I would remain available. > > I'm sorry, but I have the feeling that you are making too much of a fuss > about > this. Maybe you are misunderstanding what "moderating" entails. Or maybe I > misunderstood for years what moderation of a mailing list entails. > > I am owner of one mailing list and moderator of another. Moderation of the > second mailing list is restricted to the moderation of posts that are held > for > moderation mostly because those post come from unsubscribed senders (99 % > of > this is SPAM). I'm not even subscribed to the second mailing list. I don't > see > moderation of legit posts (i.e. posts that are not held for moderation) as > my > task. This kind of moderation costs almost no time. > > Regards, > Ingo > It's true that it costs each of us listowners/moderators "no time" per list. Albert's point is what happens when such people disappear? While it may seem like easy work that "anyone" can do, it can be like people throwing litter into the trashcan instead of into the street. Each such act takes a mere second, but when it is not done, there are mounds of garbage (spam). If all of us listowner/moderators see ourselves as part of the list *team*, then we can cover for one another, and recruit new team members when necessary. I don't see this as a "fuss" but more about turning a small problem into a small plus for the KDE community. Valorie -- http://about.me/valoriez - pronouns: she/her
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
On Montag, 27. Juli 2020 09:58:52 CEST Ingo Klöcker wrote: > On Sonntag, 26. Juli 2020 18:31:08 CEST Philippe Cloutier wrote: > > An even bigger question, I'm afraid. When nobody steps up, what would we > > do? I wouldn't mind "moderating" this list today, for instance, since I > > found the time to read it. But I for one would not *commit* myself to > > moderate it or any other; I just don't have the required availability > > and if I had, I wouldn't guarantee I would remain available. > > I'm sorry, but I have the feeling that you are making too much of a fuss > about > this. Maybe you are misunderstanding what "moderating" entails. Or maybe I > misunderstood for years what moderation of a mailing list entails. > > I am owner of one mailing list and moderator of another. Moderation of the > second mailing list is restricted to the moderation of posts that are held > for > moderation mostly because those post come from unsubscribed senders (99 % of > this is SPAM). I'm not even subscribed to the second mailing list. I don't > see > moderation of legit posts (i.e. posts that are not held for moderation) as my > task. This kind of moderation costs almost no time. Yep, that hits the nail on the head. I can second that. -- Regards Thomas Baumgart https://www.signal.org/ Signal, the better WhatsApp - Computer science terms (#095): PGP-Keysigning-Party The cult of sitting together and collectively mumbling magic numbers. -- Gert Doering - signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
On Sonntag, 26. Juli 2020 18:31:08 CEST Philippe Cloutier wrote: > An even bigger question, I'm afraid. When nobody steps up, what would we > do? I wouldn't mind "moderating" this list today, for instance, since I > found the time to read it. But I for one would not *commit* myself to > moderate it or any other; I just don't have the required availability > and if I had, I wouldn't guarantee I would remain available. I'm sorry, but I have the feeling that you are making too much of a fuss about this. Maybe you are misunderstanding what "moderating" entails. Or maybe I misunderstood for years what moderation of a mailing list entails. I am owner of one mailing list and moderator of another. Moderation of the second mailing list is restricted to the moderation of posts that are held for moderation mostly because those post come from unsubscribed senders (99 % of this is SPAM). I'm not even subscribed to the second mailing list. I don't see moderation of legit posts (i.e. posts that are not held for moderation) as my task. This kind of moderation costs almost no time. Regards, Ingo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
Hi Albert, Thank you for bringing up this important issue. Le 2020-07-22 à 18:31, Albert Astals Cid a écrit : Dear Community, One important part of mailing lists being healthy is owners/moderators[1]. They moderate the lists, they help users that want to subscribe/unsubscribe but don't know how to, they enact emergency moderation in the very very seldom case that it is needed, etc. So to keep our mailing lists healthy we need to be sure to have healthy list owners. In plural, more than one, because from time to time, we go on vacation and the list duties still need taking care of. For that I'd like to enact this policy: Mailing lists should have at least 2 active owners, ideally 3 [Obviously exceptions apply, like if we just started a mailing list to coordinate translators for a language that has no translation in KDE yet, we'd probably have no way to get 2 list owners] One keyword in that sentence is "active". Mailing list ownership/moderation un-activity is hard to detect. One way to potentially detect it, is by those summaries that sysadmin sends periodically for lists with lots of mails to moderate, but that doesn't cover all the cases. For example, it's possible that a mailing list has 2 owners and only one of them is inactive, since the other one is keeping the list in working condition we don't see it as a problem, but if that person goes on holiday, then it suddenly is. For that I'd like to enact this policy sub-point: Mailing list owners will be contacted every year asking if they are still active and if they want to continue being list owner or if they'd prefer we find a substitute. If they say "please find a substitute" or fail to answer in a given time frame (I'd say a month is fair), they will be removed as owners and in case the "at least 2 active owners, ideally 3" policy is broken we'll find a new person. Does that sound something like we could agree on? Then the big question is "who will do this work?" Because it seems quite a bit of work (albeit only once a year). I would suggest the Community Working Group does this, as it's a way to keep our community healthy, but i understand it's quite some work, so i volunteer to do it if the CWG doesn't feel this is a task they want to take on. Things I'm missing? An even bigger question, I'm afraid. When nobody steps up, what would we do? I wouldn't mind "moderating" this list today, for instance, since I found the time to read it. But I for one would not *commit* myself to moderate it or any other; I just don't have the required availability and if I had, I wouldn't guarantee I would remain available. Basic moderation may require little effort and knowledge, but the volume can be important, and the fact that the task seems easy has a downside: it may not develop skill that much (or not those most look for in this project), it is little rewarding and may not contribute much to one's curriculum vitae. These factors unfortunately make it more difficult to secure reliable/good moderators in a volunteer context like KDE's. Plus, like any regulation, such a policy could have unintended consequences. Perhaps this would put pressure on moderators, which would lower the quality of moderation, or put pressure to allow moderation by some insufficiently skilled. Improvement suggestions? I don't have the ideal solution, but I suggest a (more) gradual/organic/decentralized perspective. For example, a forum's moderators could determine by themselves a time limit for moderation for their forum. If no one has evaluated a post in that time, the mail is relayed, but with a warning to that effect (allowing subscribers to filter it accordingly). As for the archives, the mail would display after that delay, but with a warning (which would disappear if it gets evaluated). Even better, a subscriber could decide for himself how long to hold posts before relaying them to him unevaluated (correspondingly, those following through the web could set how long to hide posts before showing them). Otherwise, a very down-to-earth solution could be to work on the reward issue, which could be alleviated simply by crediting moderators (which may also help those who do want to use moderation experience to boost their curriculum vitae). This could also complement other work; if we detail credits (for example by specifying the number of processed messages and/or the latest date when each moderator processed a message for the last time), it gets easier to measure moderator activity. It would be very helpful to have per-forum metrics too - average processing times, oldest post to process and the current/average number of messages requiring processing. Not only would that help decide if changes are needed, but it would reduce frustration too; often, waiting for messages to be processed is not as bad as not knowing how long it will take, if there are others in the same situation
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:28 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > El dijous, 23 de juliol de 2020, a les 23:49:23 CEST, Valorie Zimmerman va > escriure: > > I had another thought hours after I sent my reply to Albert. What if we > > create a list for KDE listowners to which all listowners and mods are > > subscribed? That way we can approach issues as a team, share resources > and > > problems, ask one another for coverage during planned absences, etc. > > > > We had a list like this at Rootsweb, a free genealogy community, and it > > generally worked well. RW also used Mailman software before closing the > > lists recently. I've moved most of my former lists to Groups.io which is > a > > splendid platform. I very much wish it was Free software! > > > > It seems like a lits would be a more stable way to approach the issue > than > > an annual inquiry email. > > > > Thoughts? > > I think a listowners list may be interesting to explore, but i don't see > how it solves the "3 of the 4 list owners of okular-devel have gone away" > problem. > > We still need to ping them, don't we? > > Cheers, > Albert > True that. However at least we'll have all the listowners corralled, keeping in mind that KDE is a very polite and orderly anarchist collective. :-) I have listowner privileges on quite a few KDE lists where things I don't understand are being discussed. However, I can tell the difference between a serious email to a devel list and spam, and using the cli application "listadmin" I can sort the spam from the actual posts for lots of lists in very little time. So a few of us doing that will remove most of the burden from many others. If *all* of the listowners & mods are subbed to the new list, when they leave I can write to them and find out why, so we would not have to wait a year to put out the call for replacements. Valorie > Valorie > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:38 AM Ben Cooksley wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valorie Zimmerman > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:31 PM Albert Astals Cid > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Dear Community, > > > >> > > > >> One important part of mailing lists being healthy is > > > owners/moderators[1]. > > > >> > > > >> They moderate the lists, they help users that want to > > > subscribe/unsubscribe but don't know how to, they enact emergency > > > moderation in the very very seldom case that it is needed, etc. > > > >> > > > >> So to keep our mailing lists healthy we need to be sure to have > healthy > > > list owners. > > > >> > > > >> In plural, more than one, because from time to time, we go on > vacation > > > and the list duties still need taking care of. > > > >> > > > >> For that I'd like to enact this policy: > > > >> > > > >> Mailing lists should have at least 2 active owners, ideally 3 > > > [Obviously exceptions apply, like if we just started a mailing list to > > > coordinate translators for a language that has no translation in KDE > yet, > > > we'd probably have no way to get 2 list owners] > > > >> > > > >> One keyword in that sentence is "active". > > > >> > > > >> Mailing list ownership/moderation un-activity is hard to detect. > > > >> > > > >> One way to potentially detect it, is by those summaries that > sysadmin > > > sends periodically for lists with lots of mails to moderate, but that > > > doesn't cover all the cases. > > > >> > > > >> For example, it's possible that a mailing list has 2 owners and only > > > one of them is inactive, since the other one is keeping the list in > working > > > condition we don't see it as a problem, but if that person goes on > holiday, > > > then it suddenly is. > > > >> > > > >> For that I'd like to enact this policy sub-point: > > > >> > > > >> Mailing list owners will be contacted every year asking if they > are > > > still active and if they want to continue being list owner or if they'd > > > prefer we find a substitute. > > > >> > > > >> If they say "please find a substitute" or fail to answer in a given > > > time frame (I'd say a month is fair), they will be removed as owners > and in > > > case the "at least 2 active owners, ideally 3" policy is broken we'll > find > > > a new person. > > > >> > > > >> Does that sound something like we could agree on? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this is a good idea. > > > > > > > >> Then the big question is "who will do this work?" Because it seems > > > quite a bit of work (albeit only once a year). I would suggest the > > > Community Working Group does this, as it's a way to keep our community > > > healthy, but i understand it's quite some work, so i volunteer to do > it if > > > the CWG doesn't feel this is a task they want to take on. > > > > > > > > > > > > As a member of CWG, I think that this is a suitable task for us, and > I'm > > > willing to do it. However, surely there is a master list of all the > lists > > > and who the stated owners and mods are. If so, can't the sending be > done > > > somewhat automatically?
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
El dijous, 23 de juliol de 2020, a les 23:49:23 CEST, Valorie Zimmerman va escriure: > I had another thought hours after I sent my reply to Albert. What if we > create a list for KDE listowners to which all listowners and mods are > subscribed? That way we can approach issues as a team, share resources and > problems, ask one another for coverage during planned absences, etc. > > We had a list like this at Rootsweb, a free genealogy community, and it > generally worked well. RW also used Mailman software before closing the > lists recently. I've moved most of my former lists to Groups.io which is a > splendid platform. I very much wish it was Free software! > > It seems like a lits would be a more stable way to approach the issue than > an annual inquiry email. > > Thoughts? I think a listowners list may be interesting to explore, but i don't see how it solves the "3 of the 4 list owners of okular-devel have gone away" problem. We still need to ping them, don't we? Cheers, Albert > > Valorie > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:38 AM Ben Cooksley wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valorie Zimmerman > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:31 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > >> > > >> Dear Community, > > >> > > >> One important part of mailing lists being healthy is > > owners/moderators[1]. > > >> > > >> They moderate the lists, they help users that want to > > subscribe/unsubscribe but don't know how to, they enact emergency > > moderation in the very very seldom case that it is needed, etc. > > >> > > >> So to keep our mailing lists healthy we need to be sure to have healthy > > list owners. > > >> > > >> In plural, more than one, because from time to time, we go on vacation > > and the list duties still need taking care of. > > >> > > >> For that I'd like to enact this policy: > > >> > > >> Mailing lists should have at least 2 active owners, ideally 3 > > [Obviously exceptions apply, like if we just started a mailing list to > > coordinate translators for a language that has no translation in KDE yet, > > we'd probably have no way to get 2 list owners] > > >> > > >> One keyword in that sentence is "active". > > >> > > >> Mailing list ownership/moderation un-activity is hard to detect. > > >> > > >> One way to potentially detect it, is by those summaries that sysadmin > > sends periodically for lists with lots of mails to moderate, but that > > doesn't cover all the cases. > > >> > > >> For example, it's possible that a mailing list has 2 owners and only > > one of them is inactive, since the other one is keeping the list in working > > condition we don't see it as a problem, but if that person goes on holiday, > > then it suddenly is. > > >> > > >> For that I'd like to enact this policy sub-point: > > >> > > >> Mailing list owners will be contacted every year asking if they are > > still active and if they want to continue being list owner or if they'd > > prefer we find a substitute. > > >> > > >> If they say "please find a substitute" or fail to answer in a given > > time frame (I'd say a month is fair), they will be removed as owners and in > > case the "at least 2 active owners, ideally 3" policy is broken we'll find > > a new person. > > >> > > >> Does that sound something like we could agree on? > > > > > > > > > I think this is a good idea. > > > > > >> Then the big question is "who will do this work?" Because it seems > > quite a bit of work (albeit only once a year). I would suggest the > > Community Working Group does this, as it's a way to keep our community > > healthy, but i understand it's quite some work, so i volunteer to do it if > > the CWG doesn't feel this is a task they want to take on. > > > > > > > > > As a member of CWG, I think that this is a suitable task for us, and I'm > > willing to do it. However, surely there is a master list of all the lists > > and who the stated owners and mods are. If so, can't the sending be done > > somewhat automatically? With the answers going to the CWG or whoever, to > > find replacement people. > > > > > > > You'd need a way of catching the exceptions - the people who don't reply > > though. > > Not sure how easy that would be to automate, but it's probably possible. > > > > In terms of getting a list of all lists, we can provide one of those > > (it's attached). I'm not sure if Mailman provides anything out of the > > box that lists who the owners of a list are though. > > > > >> Things I'm missing? > > > > > > > > > Healthy lists are somewhat active. While a major protective duty of > > owners and mods is to keep spam out and keep conversations moving in a > > positive way, another is to keep the list active by bringing to it > > appropriate topics of discussion. I don't want that forgotten. Too often > > issues are discussed in IRC and never brought to the list where they ought > > to be. > > > > > >> Improvement suggestions? > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Albert > > >> > > >> [1] yes, i know they are not th
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
I had another thought hours after I sent my reply to Albert. What if we create a list for KDE listowners to which all listowners and mods are subscribed? That way we can approach issues as a team, share resources and problems, ask one another for coverage during planned absences, etc. We had a list like this at Rootsweb, a free genealogy community, and it generally worked well. RW also used Mailman software before closing the lists recently. I've moved most of my former lists to Groups.io which is a splendid platform. I very much wish it was Free software! It seems like a lits would be a more stable way to approach the issue than an annual inquiry email. Thoughts? Valorie On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:38 AM Ben Cooksley wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valorie Zimmerman > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:31 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > >> > >> Dear Community, > >> > >> One important part of mailing lists being healthy is > owners/moderators[1]. > >> > >> They moderate the lists, they help users that want to > subscribe/unsubscribe but don't know how to, they enact emergency > moderation in the very very seldom case that it is needed, etc. > >> > >> So to keep our mailing lists healthy we need to be sure to have healthy > list owners. > >> > >> In plural, more than one, because from time to time, we go on vacation > and the list duties still need taking care of. > >> > >> For that I'd like to enact this policy: > >> > >> Mailing lists should have at least 2 active owners, ideally 3 > [Obviously exceptions apply, like if we just started a mailing list to > coordinate translators for a language that has no translation in KDE yet, > we'd probably have no way to get 2 list owners] > >> > >> One keyword in that sentence is "active". > >> > >> Mailing list ownership/moderation un-activity is hard to detect. > >> > >> One way to potentially detect it, is by those summaries that sysadmin > sends periodically for lists with lots of mails to moderate, but that > doesn't cover all the cases. > >> > >> For example, it's possible that a mailing list has 2 owners and only > one of them is inactive, since the other one is keeping the list in working > condition we don't see it as a problem, but if that person goes on holiday, > then it suddenly is. > >> > >> For that I'd like to enact this policy sub-point: > >> > >> Mailing list owners will be contacted every year asking if they are > still active and if they want to continue being list owner or if they'd > prefer we find a substitute. > >> > >> If they say "please find a substitute" or fail to answer in a given > time frame (I'd say a month is fair), they will be removed as owners and in > case the "at least 2 active owners, ideally 3" policy is broken we'll find > a new person. > >> > >> Does that sound something like we could agree on? > > > > > > I think this is a good idea. > > > >> Then the big question is "who will do this work?" Because it seems > quite a bit of work (albeit only once a year). I would suggest the > Community Working Group does this, as it's a way to keep our community > healthy, but i understand it's quite some work, so i volunteer to do it if > the CWG doesn't feel this is a task they want to take on. > > > > > > As a member of CWG, I think that this is a suitable task for us, and I'm > willing to do it. However, surely there is a master list of all the lists > and who the stated owners and mods are. If so, can't the sending be done > somewhat automatically? With the answers going to the CWG or whoever, to > find replacement people. > > > > You'd need a way of catching the exceptions - the people who don't reply > though. > Not sure how easy that would be to automate, but it's probably possible. > > In terms of getting a list of all lists, we can provide one of those > (it's attached). I'm not sure if Mailman provides anything out of the > box that lists who the owners of a list are though. > > >> Things I'm missing? > > > > > > Healthy lists are somewhat active. While a major protective duty of > owners and mods is to keep spam out and keep conversations moving in a > positive way, another is to keep the list active by bringing to it > appropriate topics of discussion. I don't want that forgotten. Too often > issues are discussed in IRC and never brought to the list where they ought > to be. > > > >> Improvement suggestions? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Albert > >> > >> [1] yes, i know they are not the same, but since one is a subset of the > other, let's pretend they are. > > > > > > I would like to hear from Sysadmin how many lists we have and how many > owners and if there is a way to automatically send an email to all owners > along with the names of the lists they administer. > > > > Valorie > > Cheers, > Ben > > > > > -- > > http://about.me/valoriez - pronouns: she/her > > > > > -- http://about.me/valoriez - pronouns: she/her
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
On Donnerstag, 23. Juli 2020 10:38:10 CEST Ben Cooksley wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valorie Zimmerman > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:31 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > >> > >> Dear Community, > >> > >> One important part of mailing lists being healthy is owners/moderators[1]. > >> > >> They moderate the lists, they help users that want to > >> subscribe/unsubscribe but don't know how to, they enact emergency > >> moderation in the very very seldom case that it is needed, etc. > >> > >> So to keep our mailing lists healthy we need to be sure to have healthy > >> list owners. > >> > >> In plural, more than one, because from time to time, we go on vacation and > >> the list duties still need taking care of. > >> > >> For that I'd like to enact this policy: > >> > >> Mailing lists should have at least 2 active owners, ideally 3 > >> [Obviously exceptions apply, like if we just started a mailing list to > >> coordinate translators for a language that has no translation in KDE yet, > >> we'd probably have no way to get 2 list owners] > >> > >> One keyword in that sentence is "active". > >> > >> Mailing list ownership/moderation un-activity is hard to detect. > >> > >> One way to potentially detect it, is by those summaries that sysadmin > >> sends periodically for lists with lots of mails to moderate, but that > >> doesn't cover all the cases. > >> > >> For example, it's possible that a mailing list has 2 owners and only one > >> of them is inactive, since the other one is keeping the list in working > >> condition we don't see it as a problem, but if that person goes on > >> holiday, then it suddenly is. > >> > >> For that I'd like to enact this policy sub-point: > >> > >> Mailing list owners will be contacted every year asking if they are > >> still active and if they want to continue being list owner or if they'd > >> prefer we find a substitute. > >> > >> If they say "please find a substitute" or fail to answer in a given time > >> frame (I'd say a month is fair), they will be removed as owners and in > >> case the "at least 2 active owners, ideally 3" policy is broken we'll find > >> a new person. > >> > >> Does that sound something like we could agree on? > > > > > > I think this is a good idea. > > > >> Then the big question is "who will do this work?" Because it seems quite a > >> bit of work (albeit only once a year). I would suggest the Community > >> Working Group does this, as it's a way to keep our community healthy, but > >> i understand it's quite some work, so i volunteer to do it if the CWG > >> doesn't feel this is a task they want to take on. > > > > > > As a member of CWG, I think that this is a suitable task for us, and I'm > > willing to do it. However, surely there is a master list of all the lists > > and who the stated owners and mods are. If so, can't the sending be done > > somewhat automatically? With the answers going to the CWG or whoever, to > > find replacement people. > > > > You'd need a way of catching the exceptions - the people who don't reply > though. > Not sure how easy that would be to automate, but it's probably possible. > > In terms of getting a list of all lists, we can provide one of those > (it's attached). I'm not sure if Mailman provides anything out of the > box that lists who the owners of a list are though. list_admins -a should provide that. Cheers Thomas > >> Things I'm missing? > > > > > > Healthy lists are somewhat active. While a major protective duty of owners > > and mods is to keep spam out and keep conversations moving in a positive > > way, another is to keep the list active by bringing to it appropriate > > topics of discussion. I don't want that forgotten. Too often issues are > > discussed in IRC and never brought to the list where they ought to be. > > > >> Improvement suggestions? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Albert > >> > >> [1] yes, i know they are not the same, but since one is a subset of the > >> other, let's pretend they are. > > > > > > I would like to hear from Sysadmin how many lists we have and how many > > owners and if there is a way to automatically send an email to all owners > > along with the names of the lists they administer. > > > > Valorie > > Cheers, > Ben signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
Hi, should I open a sysadmin ticket to add owners/moderators or can I do it directly for the list I moderate? Johnny Le jeu. 23 juil. 2020 à 10:38, Ben Cooksley a écrit : > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valorie Zimmerman > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:31 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > >> > >> Dear Community, > >> > >> One important part of mailing lists being healthy is > owners/moderators[1]. > >> > >> They moderate the lists, they help users that want to > subscribe/unsubscribe but don't know how to, they enact emergency > moderation in the very very seldom case that it is needed, etc. > >> > >> So to keep our mailing lists healthy we need to be sure to have healthy > list owners. > >> > >> In plural, more than one, because from time to time, we go on vacation > and the list duties still need taking care of. > >> > >> For that I'd like to enact this policy: > >> > >> Mailing lists should have at least 2 active owners, ideally 3 > [Obviously exceptions apply, like if we just started a mailing list to > coordinate translators for a language that has no translation in KDE yet, > we'd probably have no way to get 2 list owners] > >> > >> One keyword in that sentence is "active". > >> > >> Mailing list ownership/moderation un-activity is hard to detect. > >> > >> One way to potentially detect it, is by those summaries that sysadmin > sends periodically for lists with lots of mails to moderate, but that > doesn't cover all the cases. > >> > >> For example, it's possible that a mailing list has 2 owners and only > one of them is inactive, since the other one is keeping the list in working > condition we don't see it as a problem, but if that person goes on holiday, > then it suddenly is. > >> > >> For that I'd like to enact this policy sub-point: > >> > >> Mailing list owners will be contacted every year asking if they are > still active and if they want to continue being list owner or if they'd > prefer we find a substitute. > >> > >> If they say "please find a substitute" or fail to answer in a given > time frame (I'd say a month is fair), they will be removed as owners and in > case the "at least 2 active owners, ideally 3" policy is broken we'll find > a new person. > >> > >> Does that sound something like we could agree on? > > > > > > I think this is a good idea. > > > >> Then the big question is "who will do this work?" Because it seems > quite a bit of work (albeit only once a year). I would suggest the > Community Working Group does this, as it's a way to keep our community > healthy, but i understand it's quite some work, so i volunteer to do it if > the CWG doesn't feel this is a task they want to take on. > > > > > > As a member of CWG, I think that this is a suitable task for us, and I'm > willing to do it. However, surely there is a master list of all the lists > and who the stated owners and mods are. If so, can't the sending be done > somewhat automatically? With the answers going to the CWG or whoever, to > find replacement people. > > > > You'd need a way of catching the exceptions - the people who don't reply > though. > Not sure how easy that would be to automate, but it's probably possible. > > In terms of getting a list of all lists, we can provide one of those > (it's attached). I'm not sure if Mailman provides anything out of the > box that lists who the owners of a list are though. > > >> Things I'm missing? > > > > > > Healthy lists are somewhat active. While a major protective duty of > owners and mods is to keep spam out and keep conversations moving in a > positive way, another is to keep the list active by bringing to it > appropriate topics of discussion. I don't want that forgotten. Too often > issues are discussed in IRC and never brought to the list where they ought > to be. > > > >> Improvement suggestions? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Albert > >> > >> [1] yes, i know they are not the same, but since one is a subset of the > other, let's pretend they are. > > > > > > I would like to hear from Sysadmin how many lists we have and how many > owners and if there is a way to automatically send an email to all owners > along with the names of the lists they administer. > > > > Valorie > > Cheers, > Ben > > > > > -- > > http://about.me/valoriez - pronouns: she/her > > > > >
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valorie Zimmerman wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:31 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote: >> >> Dear Community, >> >> One important part of mailing lists being healthy is owners/moderators[1]. >> >> They moderate the lists, they help users that want to subscribe/unsubscribe >> but don't know how to, they enact emergency moderation in the very very >> seldom case that it is needed, etc. >> >> So to keep our mailing lists healthy we need to be sure to have healthy list >> owners. >> >> In plural, more than one, because from time to time, we go on vacation and >> the list duties still need taking care of. >> >> For that I'd like to enact this policy: >> >> Mailing lists should have at least 2 active owners, ideally 3 [Obviously >> exceptions apply, like if we just started a mailing list to coordinate >> translators for a language that has no translation in KDE yet, we'd probably >> have no way to get 2 list owners] >> >> One keyword in that sentence is "active". >> >> Mailing list ownership/moderation un-activity is hard to detect. >> >> One way to potentially detect it, is by those summaries that sysadmin sends >> periodically for lists with lots of mails to moderate, but that doesn't >> cover all the cases. >> >> For example, it's possible that a mailing list has 2 owners and only one of >> them is inactive, since the other one is keeping the list in working >> condition we don't see it as a problem, but if that person goes on holiday, >> then it suddenly is. >> >> For that I'd like to enact this policy sub-point: >> >> Mailing list owners will be contacted every year asking if they are >> still active and if they want to continue being list owner or if they'd >> prefer we find a substitute. >> >> If they say "please find a substitute" or fail to answer in a given time >> frame (I'd say a month is fair), they will be removed as owners and in case >> the "at least 2 active owners, ideally 3" policy is broken we'll find a new >> person. >> >> Does that sound something like we could agree on? > > > I think this is a good idea. > >> Then the big question is "who will do this work?" Because it seems quite a >> bit of work (albeit only once a year). I would suggest the Community Working >> Group does this, as it's a way to keep our community healthy, but i >> understand it's quite some work, so i volunteer to do it if the CWG doesn't >> feel this is a task they want to take on. > > > As a member of CWG, I think that this is a suitable task for us, and I'm > willing to do it. However, surely there is a master list of all the lists and > who the stated owners and mods are. If so, can't the sending be done somewhat > automatically? With the answers going to the CWG or whoever, to find > replacement people. > You'd need a way of catching the exceptions - the people who don't reply though. Not sure how easy that would be to automate, but it's probably possible. In terms of getting a list of all lists, we can provide one of those (it's attached). I'm not sure if Mailman provides anything out of the box that lists who the owners of a list are though. >> Things I'm missing? > > > Healthy lists are somewhat active. While a major protective duty of owners > and mods is to keep spam out and keep conversations moving in a positive way, > another is to keep the list active by bringing to it appropriate topics of > discussion. I don't want that forgotten. Too often issues are discussed in > IRC and never brought to the list where they ought to be. > >> Improvement suggestions? >> >> Cheers, >> Albert >> >> [1] yes, i know they are not the same, but since one is a subset of the >> other, let's pretend they are. > > > I would like to hear from Sysadmin how many lists we have and how many owners > and if there is a way to automatically send an email to all owners along with > the names of the lists they administer. > > Valorie Cheers, Ben > > -- > http://about.me/valoriez - pronouns: she/her > > list-of-mailing-lists Description: Binary data
Re: Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:31 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > Dear Community, > > One important part of mailing lists being healthy is owners/moderators[1]. > > They moderate the lists, they help users that want to > subscribe/unsubscribe but don't know how to, they enact emergency > moderation in the very very seldom case that it is needed, etc. > > So to keep our mailing lists healthy we need to be sure to have healthy > list owners. > > In plural, more than one, because from time to time, we go on vacation and > the list duties still need taking care of. > > For that I'd like to enact this policy: > > Mailing lists should have at least 2 active owners, ideally 3 > [Obviously exceptions apply, like if we just started a mailing list to > coordinate translators for a language that has no translation in KDE yet, > we'd probably have no way to get 2 list owners] > > One keyword in that sentence is "active". > > Mailing list ownership/moderation un-activity is hard to detect. > > One way to potentially detect it, is by those summaries that sysadmin > sends periodically for lists with lots of mails to moderate, but that > doesn't cover all the cases. > > For example, it's possible that a mailing list has 2 owners and only one > of them is inactive, since the other one is keeping the list in working > condition we don't see it as a problem, but if that person goes on holiday, > then it suddenly is. > > For that I'd like to enact this policy sub-point: > > Mailing list owners will be contacted every year asking if they are > still active and if they want to continue being list owner or if they'd > prefer we find a substitute. > > If they say "please find a substitute" or fail to answer in a given time > frame (I'd say a month is fair), they will be removed as owners and in case > the "at least 2 active owners, ideally 3" policy is broken we'll find a new > person. > > Does that sound something like we could agree on? > I think this is a good idea. Then the big question is "who will do this work?" Because it seems quite a > bit of work (albeit only once a year). I would suggest the Community > Working Group does this, as it's a way to keep our community healthy, but i > understand it's quite some work, so i volunteer to do it if the CWG doesn't > feel this is a task they want to take on. > As a member of CWG, I think that this is a suitable task for us, and I'm willing to do it. However, surely there is a master list of all the lists and who the stated owners and mods are. If so, can't the sending be done somewhat automatically? With the answers going to the CWG or whoever, to find replacement people. Things I'm missing? > Healthy lists are somewhat active. While a major protective duty of owners and mods is to keep spam out and keep conversations moving in a positive way, another is to keep the list active by bringing to it appropriate topics of discussion. I don't want that forgotten. Too often issues are discussed in IRC and never brought to the list where they ought to be. Improvement suggestions? > > Cheers, > Albert > > [1] yes, i know they are not the same, but since one is a subset of the > other, let's pretend they are. > I would like to hear from Sysadmin how many lists we have and how many owners and if there is a way to automatically send an email to all owners along with the names of the lists they administer. Valorie -- http://about.me/valoriez - pronouns: she/her
Proposal: Mailing List owner policy
Dear Community, One important part of mailing lists being healthy is owners/moderators[1]. They moderate the lists, they help users that want to subscribe/unsubscribe but don't know how to, they enact emergency moderation in the very very seldom case that it is needed, etc. So to keep our mailing lists healthy we need to be sure to have healthy list owners. In plural, more than one, because from time to time, we go on vacation and the list duties still need taking care of. For that I'd like to enact this policy: Mailing lists should have at least 2 active owners, ideally 3 [Obviously exceptions apply, like if we just started a mailing list to coordinate translators for a language that has no translation in KDE yet, we'd probably have no way to get 2 list owners] One keyword in that sentence is "active". Mailing list ownership/moderation un-activity is hard to detect. One way to potentially detect it, is by those summaries that sysadmin sends periodically for lists with lots of mails to moderate, but that doesn't cover all the cases. For example, it's possible that a mailing list has 2 owners and only one of them is inactive, since the other one is keeping the list in working condition we don't see it as a problem, but if that person goes on holiday, then it suddenly is. For that I'd like to enact this policy sub-point: Mailing list owners will be contacted every year asking if they are still active and if they want to continue being list owner or if they'd prefer we find a substitute. If they say "please find a substitute" or fail to answer in a given time frame (I'd say a month is fair), they will be removed as owners and in case the "at least 2 active owners, ideally 3" policy is broken we'll find a new person. Does that sound something like we could agree on? Then the big question is "who will do this work?" Because it seems quite a bit of work (albeit only once a year). I would suggest the Community Working Group does this, as it's a way to keep our community healthy, but i understand it's quite some work, so i volunteer to do it if the CWG doesn't feel this is a task they want to take on. Things I'm missing? Improvement suggestions? Cheers, Albert [1] yes, i know they are not the same, but since one is a subset of the other, let's pretend they are.
