Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 13:14 +1000, Will Briggs wrote: >> Oh dear. "slight delay" in an email list forum? That's like saying >> "you can take part in this face-to-face conversation but you have to >> wait 30 seconds before you can say anything" In effect you reduce that >> person to an on-looker who can throw in the occassional comment. The >> comments themselves are reduced in their relevance or impact because by >> the time they are heard, the conversation has moved on. > > On a mailing list? > > We're not talking IRC here. We're talking mailing lists. > > I can take a nap, a full 8 hour sleep, or many times even take the > WEEKEND OFF FROM GENTOO and still manage to come back and give useful > input. Email isn't exactly instant and nobody who runs a mail server > will even pretend that it is. Adding a, say, 3 hour delay between > posting and the timeout, doesn't seem to me like it would affect much of > anything. After all, I managed to not touch my email since Friday and I > am still managing to participate in this conversation. > 1) The smaller the moderation time, the smaller the benefit of having moderation at all. The greater the moderation time, the greater the "penalty" for not being one of the "in crowd." 3 hours is an interesting figure to consider in this light and I would love to see some justification as to why that is the "sweet spot" (if, in fact, a sweet spot exists) 2) I agree - I too sleep between reading gentoo-dev. But the difference is that you are talking about a delay in reading the list (like, for, yeah, sleep). The proposal, however, is a delay between between your awareness of the current state of the conversation (and your writing of a reply), and the actual distribution of your reply. So, for instance: someone asks a (technical) question, no-one has replied, so I reply. $moderation_delay later my answer is distributed, but in the mean time n other people have answered. I (or they depending on whether they were moderated as well) look like an idiot, and the end result is more noise on the list, not less. And you can throw in a whole other bunch of the sorts of thing that can happen in the delay between reading & writing, and the actual distribution of the email --> clarifications, retractions (Don't worry I've solved it emails), solutions, and even warnings from people that the thread is off-topic! This is only compounded when the thread needs a bit of "to and fro" (the "when you said X, did you mean X+Z?" type email). Email being what it is there are always posts that "pass in the night" and double-ups and delays. These, while minimal, are one of email's inherent frustrations. The proposal simply amplifies that frustration. Moderation delay is not the same thing as having a sleep between readings of the list. W. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
Andrew Gaffney wrote: > Matthias Langer wrote: >> by banning non-dev contributors from this list some of you may feel >> better >> - but gentoo as a whole will probably suffer. silencing people doesn't >> make their opinions invalid. > > I keep seeing this argument over and over again. Many people are just > completely misunderstanding. > > This is not a blanket silencing of any non-dev on the list. This is > simply delaying the posting of messages from non-devs (and even devs > that have "improperly" moderated in the past). If nobody moderates a > particular message to the list within a set amount of time, the message > passes through. > > Making the list "moderated" isn't the same as making a channel moderated > on IRC. Anyone will still be able to speak, just with a slight delay, > which allows us to maintain a good signal-to-noise ratio, and hopefully > prevent re-occurrences of some of the nastier flamewars we've seen on > the list lately. > Oh dear. "slight delay" in an email list forum? That's like saying "you can take part in this face-to-face conversation but you have to wait 30 seconds before you can say anything" In effect you reduce that person to an on-looker who can throw in the occassional comment. The comments themselves are reduced in their relevance or impact because by the time they are heard, the conversation has moved on. In effect, it's a ban: at the very least a two-tier system demarcated along ill-chosen lines (dev / non-dev). Calling the proposal a "ban" is not misunderstanding - it's simply foresight. At the very least, this is exactly the sort of reaction you get when you exercise poor change management in a context where all participants (dev and non-dev) are heavily invested in the success of the whole. W. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Fact is -dev's volume is getting to the point where it's productivity is > diminishing. Both with dev <-> dev and dev <-> world. The entire idea > here is to help correct that and makes things BETTER :) I hear you. (Although I disagree that there is a relationship between SNR and dev <-> dev and dev <-> world.) And you're right that this is something that is a result of the organisation growing. And so the question we must face is _how_ do we want it to grow. At the moment gentoo-dev is a "one big noisy room" forum. This is seen as a "problem" Propose solutions have included: 1) The "Let's divide up the room" solution - (and so we have proposals for gentoo-politics, gentoo-flamewar and other more "specialised" fora) 2) The "Let's reduce the people in the room" solution (which is what the OP's porposal is in essence) The first doesn't work because it's well nigh impossible to enforce what is on or off topic. The second "solution" begs the question of "who do we let in the room?" I submit to you that demarcating based on dev status is a Bad Idea. Some devs make the room less productive, some non-devs would make the room more productive. Unfortunately, demarcation of insiders and outsiders by any other means would be arbitrary. We arrive at the the third "solution" 3) People in the room can choose to take part in some conversations and ignore others as they see fit. This is basically the first two solutions implemented personally rather than globally. It's easily implemented through filters and sheer common sense. Oh, and it's also the status quo. W. PS. My heart rate and the alarm bells of being close to repeating myself indicate that I'm close to being fuel for flame here. Please excuse if I don't continue to post. Not being rude, just exercising some of that common sense. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 19:51 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:44:03 -0400 >> "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> To future devs and any new contributing users, they will see -dev as a >>> ml for developer interaction. They will see -project as a place for >>> interaction with the community. >> Wouldn't that be, uh, -user? > > No because that's where people go for help. Or to discuss usage of > Gentoo. > > -project would be for people or etc looking to contribute to the Gentoo > project. Development and etc for anyone outside of the Gentoo project :) > But -dev is where the substantial discussion takes place. -dev would still be the "inside loop." And a community based project simply should not exclude/reduce (even simply in perception) the community's involvement in that loop. Correct me if I'm reading you wrong but you seem, in your choice of words, to be relegating non-devs to being "outside of the Gentoo project." And that is exactly the attitude we need to steer clear of, and exactly the DNA that this proposal would inject. I love/admire/adore/have great gratitude for our developers. They are certainly part of this project. But, even as a lowly user - I am also. Or perhaps I've just been reading too much Marx... W. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
Mike Doty wrote: > All- > > We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only > devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate > in > bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the > gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. > there is no requirement to be on this new list. > > This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out > anyway) > but that's a path to cross later. > > We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be > the time. > > --taco A few points 1) As a point of fact, here am I, a non-dev user, responding to an email on the dev list. Why? Because it's an issue that affects me as a user. Users are part of the gentoo community (*cough* are the whole point of the gentoo community *cough*) and at some point user-developer interaction needs to have a "level playing field" forum. gentoo-dev, in practice, has provided this. _However it is spun, any moderating of non-devs is a disenfranchisement_ 2) "what -dev frequently becomes" - does this solve the problem? Let me suggest that flamewars and other negative things can and will appear amongst the copious amount of dry tinder that exists within the ranks of those who have an @g.o email address. _These proposed changes won't solve the "problem"_ 3) I read this list to keep my finger on the pulse of what's happening in gentoo's heart. Crucial to this is the significant contribution of some non-dev's. Included among these are former-developers, who while they can't contribute in code or bug fixes etc, can in thought and debate. I'll also name up Duncan who here and on -amd64 often provides thought-provoking (although *cough* lengthy) posts, and even Mr. McCreesh who provides posts that while sometimes caustic/flammable, are also often precise and, in the most positive sense of the word, idealistic. I wouldn't want these contributions to be delayed or (perish the thought) vexatiously moderated. _Contributions from non-devs are valuable_ 4) gentoo-dev is what it is. If you want a moderated list, create a new, moderated list, where everyone member is subject to it and there are clear understandings, from the get-go of who, by whom, and what will be moderated. _If you want to do this, do it properly_ W. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Hiatus (sort of)
Andrew Gaffney wrote: > Paul de Vrieze wrote: >> On Saturday 31 March 2007, you wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Me and my wife and son are moving to Australia. We are now waiting >>> for the >>> visa's to arrive, and after that will need some time to set >>> ourselves up. >>> Our computers however are being shipped as we speak and will only >>> arive in >>> australia after roughly 6 weeks. I'm looking to buy a laptop, but >>> connectivity will be problematic anyways. As such I will not be able to >>> contribute as much as I would like. >> >> It took a while longer, but I finally have broadband again, and my >> computers back etc. I'll first be catching up on the email, but I'm >> back in action again. Now from Hobart, Tasmania (Australia) > > Welcome back! > And welcome to Tas. :-) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
