Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics

[Olav Vitters]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 06:37:41PM -0500, Karen Sandler wrote:
> Moreover, it's probably more polite to make requests about changes to
> moderation policy off-list to the admins,

I'm set as one of the listadmins for this mailing list.

Suggest at minimum the following:
* decide what is on topic and what is off topic for this list
  I assume GNU is ontopic, as long as the GNOME website says we are part
  of it.
* contact the person off list, pointing towards previous discussion on
  what is ontopic and what is not
* if this does not help, maybe contact Code of Conduct mediator
* as last resort, contact a listadmin

Personally, I heavily disagree with the way things are done in GNU
(actions, not the ideas). Mostly due to the attitude which to me seems
like an extreme version of "us vs them". The 'Ubuntu' thing however was
made clear that such behaviour is not acceptable which IMO is also good
to make clear. But personal opinion aside, please first define if GNU
matters should be ontopic or not.

-- 
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Are membership renewals generally discussed publicly on the list? (was Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics)

[Bastien Nocera]

On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 12:36 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Is it standard procedure for credentials of Foundation members to be
> discussed on-list like this -- particularly for existing members in good
> standing?

My question was a rhetorical one.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Are membership renewals generally discussed publicly on the list? (was Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics)

[Vincent Untz]

Hi,

Le jeudi 10 janvier 2013, à 12:36 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn a écrit :
> Is it standard procedure for credentials of Foundation members to be
> discussed on-list like this -- particularly for existing members in good
> standing?
> 
> For example, I don't recall my own membership being discussed herein when I
> was renewed; it was done in private email with the Membership Committee.

Actually, such discussions are now publicly archived (even though
there are still private mails every now and then, I guess):
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/membership-committee/

But that only happens when the person applies (or re-applies) for
membership, but not on foundation-list, and such discussions are lead by
the membership committee.

Cheers,

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Are membership renewals generally discussed publicly on the list? (was Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics)

[Sriram Ramkrishna]

Bradley,

No, this is not standard procedure.  This should have been a private matter
and not something that should have been brought out in public.  Regardless
of who it is, this should have been communicated privately with the list
owner.  Stormy has done something similar in keeping things in check on the
mailing list.

sri


On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn  wrote:

> Is it standard procedure for credentials of Foundation members to be
> discussed on-list like this -- particularly for existing members in good
> standing?
>
> For example, I don't recall my own membership being discussed herein when I
> was renewed; it was done in private email with the Membership Committee.
>
> My GNOME contributions have indeed been eclectic, non-regular and, well,
> just
> plain "different" than the norm.  For example, I've helped with licensing
> policy discussions and drafting, and I've done some work to defend GNOME 3
> publicly against the "Linus Torvalds attacks".
>
> Meanwhile, upon reading this sub-thread and considering my own
> contributions
> to the GNOME Foundation, I'm frankly left wondering if my membership would
> be
> "next" to be called into question on this thread.  I imagine that I'd feel
> *really* uncomfortable and even personally offended if my own membership
> were
> being called into question publicly on this list!
>
> Thus, IMO, it frankly seems unnecessarily aggressive and downright
> inappropriate to question someone's fitness for membership on the public
> list
> like this, and I hope that folks will show restraint and raise any such
> issues privately among the Membership Committee and the member in question.
>
>-- bkuhn
> ___
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
>
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics

[Chris Leonard]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Behdad Esfahbod  wrote:
> Ok everyone.  Now that both sides had a chance to attack each other and defend
> themselves, and as Richard constructively agreed to try to remember to change
> subject lines in the future, can we please put an end to this and neighboring
> threads?  I mean, don't you all have code to write?
>
> Cheers,
> behdad
>

Behdad, I'm afraid we may have to wait for Godwin's Law to be invoked,
although of course the attempt to do so intentionally will be
unsuccessful :-)

cjl
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics

[Alex Launi]

Yeah, we should definitely have policy in place to keep some voices quieter
than others. An absolute must.


On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Behdad Esfahbod  wrote:

> Ok everyone.  Now that both sides had a chance to attack each other and
> defend
> themselves, and as Richard constructively agreed to try to remember to
> change
> subject lines in the future, can we please put an end to this and
> neighboring
> threads?  I mean, don't you all have code to write?
>
> Cheers,
> behdad
>
>
> On 13-01-10 02:39 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Awaiting now the potential "GMail was mentioned, Google is bad!"
> reply.
> >
> > You seem to be attacking me for things you imagine I might say.
> > At least it makes your bias clear.
> >
> > And since you just raised the issue of GMail, shouldn't you have
> > changed the Subject field?  Remember, the thread you're posting in
> > started with the accusation that I "hijacked a topic" by posting
> > a single sentence about Ubuntu without changing the Subject field.
> > If that makes me a nasty topic hijacker, are you one also?
> >
> > Perhaps neither of us deserves that accusation.
> >
> > About GMail I have nothing to say.
> >
>
> --
> behdad
> http://behdad.org/
> ___
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
>



-- 
--Alex Launi
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics

[Behdad Esfahbod]

Ok everyone.  Now that both sides had a chance to attack each other and defend
themselves, and as Richard constructively agreed to try to remember to change
subject lines in the future, can we please put an end to this and neighboring
threads?  I mean, don't you all have code to write?

Cheers,
behdad


On 13-01-10 02:39 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Awaiting now the potential "GMail was mentioned, Google is bad!" reply.
> 
> You seem to be attacking me for things you imagine I might say.
> At least it makes your bias clear.
> 
> And since you just raised the issue of GMail, shouldn't you have
> changed the Subject field?  Remember, the thread you're posting in
> started with the accusation that I "hijacked a topic" by posting
> a single sentence about Ubuntu without changing the Subject field.
> If that makes me a nasty topic hijacker, are you one also?
> 
> Perhaps neither of us deserves that accusation.
> 
> About GMail I have nothing to say.
> 

-- 
behdad
http://behdad.org/
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics

[Richard Stallman]

Awaiting now the potential "GMail was mentioned, Google is bad!" reply.

You seem to be attacking me for things you imagine I might say.
At least it makes your bias clear.

And since you just raised the issue of GMail, shouldn't you have
changed the Subject field?  Remember, the thread you're posting in
started with the accusation that I "hijacked a topic" by posting
a single sentence about Ubuntu without changing the Subject field.
If that makes me a nasty topic hijacker, are you one also?

Perhaps neither of us deserves that accusation.

About GMail I have nothing to say.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics

[Richard Stallman]

Before the
holidays I kept receiving e-mails from him asking me to call it
"GNU/Linux", and then to embrace the FSF when I explained that his
repeated mails harmed his message and that I would be more likely to
*not* say GNU/Linux because of his actions.

You said that you intentionally give the credit for GNU to others by
calling it "Linux", out of personal hostility towards me.

You said your hostility was based on disapproval of a couple of things
I have done.  I asked you to discuss those events so I could defend my
conduct.  I also suggested that they were small compared with my
career, and could not outweigh all the rest.  But you refused to
discuss the question.  It seems that you want to nurse and cling to
your hostility.

That's my view of the conversation we had.  I would like to post those
messages so people can judge for themselves.  Ok?

GNOME shouldn't do anything based on personal grudges.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Are membership renewals generally discussed publicly on the list? (was Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics)

[Alberto Ruiz]

For what is worth, I don't support the idea of getting Richard out of
the GNOME Foundation, nor the way that this idea is being discussed
and nor the suggestion of moderating his posts by default.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it"
- François-Marie Arouet, aka Voltaire (1694-1778)

2013/1/10 Jeremy Allison :
> Yes. This seems to have gone beyond the realm of reasonableness and into a
> personal attack on another Foundation member. Please don't do this.
>
> I am only on this list due to the benefit of sitting on top of Google's pile
> of money, some of which we contribute to Gnome. I am too busy with my own
> Free Software project to be able to directly contribute to Gnome code. Will
> I be the next to be attacked for not being sufficiently useful to Gnome ?
>
> Jeremy.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn  wrote:
>>
>> Is it standard procedure for credentials of Foundation members to be
>> discussed on-list like this -- particularly for existing members in good
>> standing?
>>
>> For example, I don't recall my own membership being discussed herein when
>> I
>> was renewed; it was done in private email with the Membership Committee.
>>
>> My GNOME contributions have indeed been eclectic, non-regular and, well,
>> just
>> plain "different" than the norm.  For example, I've helped with licensing
>> policy discussions and drafting, and I've done some work to defend GNOME 3
>> publicly against the "Linus Torvalds attacks".
>>
>> Meanwhile, upon reading this sub-thread and considering my own
>> contributions
>> to the GNOME Foundation, I'm frankly left wondering if my membership would
>> be
>> "next" to be called into question on this thread.  I imagine that I'd feel
>> *really* uncomfortable and even personally offended if my own membership
>> were
>> being called into question publicly on this list!
>>
>> Thus, IMO, it frankly seems unnecessarily aggressive and downright
>> inappropriate to question someone's fitness for membership on the public
>> list
>> like this, and I hope that folks will show restraint and raise any such
>> issues privately among the Membership Committee and the member in
>> question.
>>
>>-- bkuhn
>> ___
>> foundation-list mailing list
>> foundation-list@gnome.org
>> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
>



--
Cheers,
Alberto Ruiz
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Are membership renewals generally discussed publicly on the list? (was Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics)

[Jeremy Allison]

Yes. This seems to have gone beyond the realm of reasonableness and into a
personal attack on another Foundation member. Please don't do this.

I am only on this list due to the benefit of sitting on top of Google's
pile of money, some of which we contribute to Gnome. I am too busy with my
own Free Software project to be able to directly contribute to Gnome code.
Will I be the next to be attacked for not being sufficiently useful to
Gnome ?

Jeremy.


On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn  wrote:

> Is it standard procedure for credentials of Foundation members to be
> discussed on-list like this -- particularly for existing members in good
> standing?
>
> For example, I don't recall my own membership being discussed herein when I
> was renewed; it was done in private email with the Membership Committee.
>
> My GNOME contributions have indeed been eclectic, non-regular and, well,
> just
> plain "different" than the norm.  For example, I've helped with licensing
> policy discussions and drafting, and I've done some work to defend GNOME 3
> publicly against the "Linus Torvalds attacks".
>
> Meanwhile, upon reading this sub-thread and considering my own
> contributions
> to the GNOME Foundation, I'm frankly left wondering if my membership would
> be
> "next" to be called into question on this thread.  I imagine that I'd feel
> *really* uncomfortable and even personally offended if my own membership
> were
> being called into question publicly on this list!
>
> Thus, IMO, it frankly seems unnecessarily aggressive and downright
> inappropriate to question someone's fitness for membership on the public
> list
> like this, and I hope that folks will show restraint and raise any such
> issues privately among the Membership Committee and the member in question.
>
>-- bkuhn
> ___
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
>
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Are membership renewals generally discussed publicly on the list? (was Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics)

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Is it standard procedure for credentials of Foundation members to be
discussed on-list like this -- particularly for existing members in good
standing?

For example, I don't recall my own membership being discussed herein when I
was renewed; it was done in private email with the Membership Committee.

My GNOME contributions have indeed been eclectic, non-regular and, well, just
plain "different" than the norm.  For example, I've helped with licensing
policy discussions and drafting, and I've done some work to defend GNOME 3
publicly against the "Linus Torvalds attacks".

Meanwhile, upon reading this sub-thread and considering my own contributions
to the GNOME Foundation, I'm frankly left wondering if my membership would be
"next" to be called into question on this thread.  I imagine that I'd feel
*really* uncomfortable and even personally offended if my own membership were
being called into question publicly on this list!

Thus, IMO, it frankly seems unnecessarily aggressive and downright
inappropriate to question someone's fitness for membership on the public list
like this, and I hope that folks will show restraint and raise any such
issues privately among the Membership Committee and the member in question.

   -- bkuhn
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics

[Andre Klapper]

On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 07:42 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> Finally, I'd really like to know what contributions he made to GNOME
> that would make him eligible to become a Foundation member. I cannot
> find any.

I asked the very same question on #foundation IRC yesterday. One theory
that came up was "advocacy".
In any case I'd also like to know.

Currently most "contributions" I see are topics getting side-tracked
into nit-picky naming issues (it's GNU/Linux, it's Free Software) though
everybody knows and understands what the original poster intended to
express. These repeated posting are useless to me. Still I have to go
through them as a posting in an otherwise interesting thread could
theoretically also be interesting and even on-topic.
I also see criticizing GNOME partners as "pretty bad" or individuals
which are employed by GNOME partners are marked as "working for X" which
is used as an argument against them, despite them writing "all of my
opinions and views expressed in this email are solely my own" before.

I normally try to keep away from people with bad influence and stop
energy, so I guess I am going to unsubscribe from this mailing list
again. That's also why I was not subscribed to this list for years while
being a foundation member: Too much noise and distraction, thanks to a
very small number of vocal individuals that seemed to not bring much
additional value to conversations.

andre

PS: To those people proposing to use email filters: I'd still get quoted
answers and my client cannot "mute" a conversation like GMail.
Awaiting now the potential "GMail was mentioned, Google is bad!" reply.

-- 
Andre Klapper  |  ak...@gmx.net
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics

[Bastien Nocera]

Hey,

On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 18:37 -0500, Karen Sandler wrote:
> On Wed, January 9, 2013 5:28 pm, Tobias Mueller wrote:
> > Heya,
> >
> > On 09.01.2013 23:15, Andrew Cowie wrote:
> >> Would it be possible to set the moderation bit for Richard Stallman's
> >> posts to GNOME lists?
> > sure it would be. The list is managed by mailman and it has that feature.
> >
> >> As Stormy pointed out, every time there's a conversation about anything
> >> he jumps in and swerves off thread.
> > I see neither the "every time" nor the "swerving off" part. Even if I
> > did, I hope that it takes some more effort like providing references
> > before being able to block someone from posting to GNOME mailing lists.
> > Proof:
> > 
> 
> I agree.

I don't.

>  I should also note that Richard brings up a really solid point in
> his post,

Maybe, but it was completely irrelevant to the conversation. It's not
the Free Software Foundation's list, but the GNOME Foundation's list,
and it wasn't on-topic.

>  and while he should have started a different thread and perhaps
> worded it a little differently,

He gets away with things that we would be ostracised for. Before the
holidays I kept receiving e-mails from him asking me to call it
"GNU/Linux", and then to embrace the FSF when I explained that his
repeated mails harmed his message and that I would be more likely to
*not* say GNU/Linux because of his actions. Whilst calling me rude. And
arguing that he wasn't.

>  his post could be relevant to GNOME
> Foundation members to read.

I think his thoughts have been plenty publicised through other channels.

> Moreover, it's probably more polite to make requests about changes to
> moderation policy off-list to the admins,

Given that it's not possible to e-mail everyone but him, I certainly
think it's the correct way to proceed. So he can answer in passive
aggressive style.

Finally, I'd really like to know what contributions he made to GNOME
that would make him eligible to become a Foundation member. I cannot
find any.

Cheers

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics

[meg ford]

Hi,

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Richard Stallman  wrote:

> Is there some practical reason why the Subject field makes a big
> difference to you?  Does it affect your mail reader's behavior
> substantially?  If changing the subject field helps people, I will try
> to remember to do it.
>

It does. Emails are organized in threads based on the subject field in many
email clients. That way, rather than trying to sort through emails to
follow where different threads in a conversation pick up and leave off, one
can simply read the pre-arranged email threads based on whether one is
interested in the subject.

I think it would make a big difference if you did this. Then people who are
interested in hearing your thoughts can read and respond to them and the
main topic can also continue.

Meg Ford
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics

[Richard Stallman]

I'm amazed by the concept of "hijacking topics".  I did not realize
that a topic was so valuable.

I said we should react to spyware _as we would_ to a crime.  You
called my messages violent theft.  Spyware is more grave than
posting a message, but your criticism is stronger than mine.

My alleged crime, if I understand right, consists of not changing the
Subject field.  I confess I don't think about the Subject field when I
send a reply.  This is because I don't know of any reason it would
matter much to anyone.

Is there some practical reason why the Subject field makes a big
difference to you?  Does it affect your mail reader's behavior
substantially?  If changing the subject field helps people, I will try
to remember to do it.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics

[Karen Sandler]

On Wed, January 9, 2013 5:28 pm, Tobias Mueller wrote:
> Heya,
>
> On 09.01.2013 23:15, Andrew Cowie wrote:
>> Would it be possible to set the moderation bit for Richard Stallman's
>> posts to GNOME lists?
> sure it would be. The list is managed by mailman and it has that feature.
>
>> As Stormy pointed out, every time there's a conversation about anything
>> he jumps in and swerves off thread.
> I see neither the "every time" nor the "swerving off" part. Even if I
> did, I hope that it takes some more effort like providing references
> before being able to block someone from posting to GNOME mailing lists.
> Proof:
> 

I agree. I should also note that Richard brings up a really solid point in
his post, and while he should have started a different thread and perhaps
worded it a little differently, his post could be relevant to GNOME
Foundation members to read.

Moreover, it's probably more polite to make requests about changes to
moderation policy off-list to the admins,

karen

>> but constantly hijacking other people's threads is getting
>> frustrating.
> You can probably tell your client easily to not display mails in these
> instances then.
> I don't think that your personal frustration should be the reason for
> everyone not to receive some type of email.
>
> Cheers,
>   Tobi
>
> ___
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
>


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics

[Tobias Mueller]

Heya,

On 09.01.2013 23:15, Andrew Cowie wrote:
> Would it be possible to set the moderation bit for Richard Stallman's
> posts to GNOME lists?
sure it would be. The list is managed by mailman and it has that feature.

> As Stormy pointed out, every time there's a conversation about anything he 
> jumps in and swerves off thread.
I see neither the "every time" nor the "swerving off" part. Even if I
did, I hope that it takes some more effort like providing references
before being able to block someone from posting to GNOME mailing lists.
Proof:


> but constantly hijacking other people's threads is getting
> frustrating.
You can probably tell your client easily to not display mails in these
instances then.
I don't think that your personal frustration should be the reason for
everyone not to receive some type of email.

Cheers,
  Tobi



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Setting moderation bit for members who consistently hijack topics

[Andrew Cowie]

Would it be possible to set the moderation bit for Richard Stallman's
posts to GNOME lists? As Stormy pointed out, every time there's a
conversation about anything he jumps in and swerves off thread. This has
been going on for a very long time.

People in the GNOME Foundation are the last people who need to be bashed
over the head about free software. I don't see any reason for him not to
start new threads on topics that are of concern to him as an individual
member, but constantly hijacking other people's threads is getting
frustrating. It's predictable; I see a foundation-list thread, count to
three, and sure enough, there's Richard jumping in with an off-topic
rant.

Given that Richard has been warned on several occasions and his replies
indicate that he doesn't think he's doing anything wrong. I can see no
alternative but to moderate his posts. Otherwise, it would seem
unsubscribing from foundation-list will be the only way to get away from
this anti-social behaviour.

Richard's is an important voice in the free software movement, though I
don't happen to think his approach is effective in garnering allies or
support for his cause, and meanwhile it is causing significant
disruption.

AfC
Sydney



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list