Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
Let's step back a minute, and consider *WHY* non-developers feel the need to join this list in the first place. Do you remember the acrimony after the decision to not officially support a separate /usr without initramfs? A lot of people who complained on the Gentoo-User list were bluntly told that the devs hadn't heard much objection, and that they should've expressed their opinion on *THIS* list *BEFORE* the final decision was made. This reminds me of a quote from The Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy... "But the plans were on display..." "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." "That's the display department." "With a flashlight." "Ah, well, the lights had probably gone." "So had the stairs." "But look, you found the notice, didn't you?" "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'." I'd really rather not have to follow an additional list which includes a lot of very technical items and patches that are over my head. But after the separate /usr fiasco, I don't feel I have any choice. If we could have a guarantee of proposed changes like that being posted on Gentoo-User for comment, rather than being sprung on users by surprise, I'd be willing to sign off this list. -- Walter DnesI don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:31:18PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: >> I'd like to request Infra to establish a new mailing list that would >> fill in the gap between our public mailing lists and the gentoo-core >> mailing list. >> >> Name: gentoo-dev-internal >> >> Topic: technical discussions between active Gentoo contributors > That's what gentoo-dev is now. > I'll be honest. I'm really way too tired right now to write a long > argument, but do we really think that basically moving everyone to > another mailing list will solve these kinds of issues? > I think this is just shuffling people around and will lead to the same > thing happening on the new list over time. +1 IMHO another list with the same topic as gentoo-dev makes no sense. *If* we want moderation, we should moderate the existing list, but not create a redundant new one. Ulrich pgph6Sc1VWn_4.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
Hi Michał, > Name: gentoo-dev-internal > > Topic: technical discussions between active Gentoo contributors Basically I object to this proposal. 1. Another layer of hierarchy is not desirable for a non-profit organization like us. 2. Useful discussion are diluted from 1 list into 2 lists. 3. It is really hard to whitelist/moderate in a transparent and objective way. I take the intention of this proposal as that you would like to keep a certain group of people out of your discussions. If you personally want to mute someone, it is straightforward to set up a blacklist in your MTA/MUA. I don't think a change is needed at the Gentoo infra level. Yours, Benda signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
Hi all, On 2017-05-23 21:08, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:31:18PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, everyone. > > > > I'd like to request Infra to establish a new mailing list that would > > fill in the gap between our public mailing lists and the gentoo-core > > mailing list. > > > > Name: gentoo-dev-internal > > > > Topic: technical discussions between active Gentoo contributors > > That's what gentoo-dev is now. > > I'll be honest. I'm really way too tired right now to write a long > argument, but do we really think that basically moving everyone to > another mailing list will solve these kinds of issues? > > I think this is just shuffling people around and will lead to the same > thing happening on the new list over time. > > William I too was left wondering, what would be the role of the gentoo-dev after the proposed change. If it is agreed that gentoo-dev has become unusable for development work and the discussion is moved elsewhere, what would be the intended purpose of the current list? -- Tuomo Hartikainen
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:31:18PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, everyone. > > I'd like to request Infra to establish a new mailing list that would > fill in the gap between our public mailing lists and the gentoo-core > mailing list. > > Name: gentoo-dev-internal > > Topic: technical discussions between active Gentoo contributors That's what gentoo-dev is now. I'll be honest. I'm really way too tired right now to write a long argument, but do we really think that basically moving everyone to another mailing list will solve these kinds of issues? I think this is just shuffling people around and will lead to the same thing happening on the new list over time. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
The same asnow with other words?, wouldn it be possible to repost peoples mail in gen-dev?. I mean instead of leting people send mail to gen-int we kidnapped the mail and send it to gen-dev so that all using gen-dev gets the hole conversion, and does only subscribe to gen-int only get to se posts from pre-aproved mail-acont, wouldn't that work?, or am I missing something fundamental?. /EKG On 23 May 2017 23:05, "Kent Fredric"wrote: > On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:32:03 + > Erik Närström wrote: > > > I'snt the idea of creating a new mailing list to let gentoo-dev be > > mesy?, in that case we could simply redirect all non-aproved posts > > from gen-int to gen-dev. > > I mean, messy in the sense you'd have replies, but no obvious parent > for the replies, so people who wanted to read the whole thread > including external submissions would need to mentally piece together 2 > independent mailing lists. > > Though, I guess my email client might work as expected being subscribed > to both lists. > > Just anyone who signs up to only gentoo-dev will get a lot of confusing > arguments :) >
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:32:03 + Erik Närströmwrote: > I'snt the idea of creating a new mailing list to let gentoo-dev be > mesy?, in that case we could simply redirect all non-aproved posts > from gen-int to gen-dev. I mean, messy in the sense you'd have replies, but no obvious parent for the replies, so people who wanted to read the whole thread including external submissions would need to mentally piece together 2 independent mailing lists. Though, I guess my email client might work as expected being subscribed to both lists. Just anyone who signs up to only gentoo-dev will get a lot of confusing arguments :) pgpSh5STxVq1m.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
I'snt the idea of creating a new mailing list to let gentoo-dev be mesy?, in that case we could simply redirect all non-aproved posts from gen-int to gen-dev. /EKG On 23 May 2017 22:04, "Kent Fredric"wrote: > On Tue, 23 May 2017 21:31:18 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > - public (open subscription), initially we may optionally copy all > > subscribers from gentoo-dev so that they do not miss discussion, > > What would be the result if somebody replied to a g-dev-internal ML > without permission? > > I think there should be something in place other than sending it > to /dev/null , but I can't think of any good approach that doesn't make > g-dev messier as a result. > > > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:52:52 -0400 Philip Webbwrote: > Is this proposal itself not just a waste of valuable developer time > in moderating, censoring & deciding who is a sheep & who is a goat ? Its not censorship, because censorship is the practice of preventing something from being said in entirety. People can still voice their opinion, and we aren't going to be suppressing it, we're just making a decision about which channels they can say things to. And we're giving consumers a choice whether they want to hear everything, or hear only a subset of things, by allowing them to subscribe to either channel. That's no more censorship than somebody setting their social media feed to allow no outsiders to post on it. Individuals can still post in their own feeds, and those who want to see it can still see it. But when it comes to *my* feed, I'm entitled to dictate what occurs in it, without being accused of censorship. pgpTUdRyw5LqM.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
On Tue, 23 May 2017 21:31:18 +0200 Michał Górnywrote: > - public (open subscription), initially we may optionally copy all > subscribers from gentoo-dev so that they do not miss discussion, What would be the result if somebody replied to a g-dev-internal ML without permission? I think there should be something in place other than sending it to /dev/null , but I can't think of any good approach that doesn't make g-dev messier as a result. pgp6SBf5rdtbH.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
170523 Michał Górny wrote: > Sadly, it is not uncommon for threads on that mailing list to turn into > trollfests, get deranged or hijacked into completely different topics. > Things are so bad that the mailing list stops serving its purpose. It > involves a number of consequences: As a user, I've been subscribed to this list since 2003 & can't remember any recent occasion -- and very few not recent -- when any such bad or damaging behaviour has happened. Is this proposal itself not just a waste of valuable developer time in moderating, censoring & deciding who is a sheep & who is a goat ? -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Michał Górnywrote: > > A. It gives a wider choice of tools for developers (and privileged > contributors) -- they can choose either the open or restricted mailing > list depending on the type of requested feedback. > > B. The gentoo-dev mailing list is still open for power users > and contributors to submit their own ideas, and with no moderation > the discussion can proceed naturally. > Wouldn't those inclined to do so simply crosspost threads to the unmoderated list? Then people will feel the need to respond to those posts for all the reasons they reply to those posts already. Maybe that would not happen if the unmoderated list essentially becomes unused and has few subscribers, but in that case we are potentially turning away contributions. Also, given the reluctance to moderate anything around here in general, do we think that the moderated list would actually be moderated if it is after-the-fact? The one advantage of requiring moderation a priori is that it requires somebody to affirm "yes, this post adds to the discussion" vs having to decide "do I want to be the one to ban user xyz from the list and deal with the fallout?" That said, it does address the sock puppet issue to a large degree, unless somebody wants to be fairly painstaking at it. (And if they're willing to go to that much trouble we'd need to be screening IDs to keep them out. There is no reason somebody couldn't go through recruitment as a dev 14 times today.) -- Rich
[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
Hi, everyone. I'd like to request Infra to establish a new mailing list that would fill in the gap between our public mailing lists and the gentoo-core mailing list. Name: gentoo-dev-internal Topic: technical discussions between active Gentoo contributors Restrictions: - public (open subscription), initially we may optionally copy all subscribers from gentoo-dev so that they do not miss discussion, - archived, - but posting restricted to opt-in member group. Initially, the posting group would include active Gentoo developers only. Afterwards, we will deploy a small moderator team whose purpose would be controlling access to the list -- including both adding new members on request and removing existing members (including developers) if they misbehave. I don't think we need to precisely define the rules for admitting new members. I think the exact procedure would be at moderators' discretion and would depend on the current 'health' of candidates -- i.e. if things go calm they may just admit on request, and if people start abusing this they will force explicit moderation before whitelisting. Rationale = The purpose of gentoo-dev is to allow technical discussion between contributors to Gentoo, especially including making it possible for developers to send RFCs and discuss their ideas. Sadly, it is not uncommon for threads on that mailing list to turn into trollfests, get deranged or hijacked into completely different topics. Things are so bad that the mailing list stops serving its purpose. It involves a number of consequences: a. The developers lose time on the mailing lists instead of using it for constructive purposes. Even skimming through those mails in search of something remotely relevant is time-consuming. b. The developers and contributors become discouraged and unsubscribe from the mailing list. As a result, audience for reviews and RFCs becomes smaller and even less focused on the topic. c. The developers become discouraged and stop sending their ideas. Either they do less, use another media or work in complete isolation from other community members. d. Eventually, the developers become tired of the persisting issues and they retire (yes, it's a fact). Other ideas on solving those issues were pretty much rejected already: 1. Bans on persisting violators were rejected as they are easily worked around via subscribing from another e-mail address, and causing more noise than the original issue. 2. Full-scale moderation of mail on gentoo-dev was rejected because of technical limitations and the resulting high level of effort in handling the moderation, plus the social effect. 3. Making gentoo-dev@ opt-in (like the suggested new list) would make it much harder for users to contribute ideas, and would inevitably discourage some of the users from writing. All that considered, establishing a second mailing list with different characteristic seems like a reasonable solution. In particular: A. It gives a wider choice of tools for developers (and privileged contributors) -- they can choose either the open or restricted mailing list depending on the type of requested feedback. B. The gentoo-dev mailing list is still open for power users and contributors to submit their own ideas, and with no moderation the discussion can proceed naturally. C. The cost of moderation should be relatively low, and the methods can be dynamically adjusted to fit the needs. In particular, good behavior on gentoo-dev can be used to grant access to gentoo-dev-internal without further requirements. D. The restricted mailing list should be resilient to ban evasion since the access is opt-in, and the moderators team can enforce direct moderation of new members if there is a considerable risk. Your comments? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part