Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Smoother moderation scheme?
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 21:48 +0100, Steve Long wrote: > > > > You already have two lists. Your argument that core is for more private > stuff, but not developer communication seems odd. Well we need two development type of lists. The first question we ask any new devs on our quizzes is When is it appropriate to post to gentoo-core rather than gentoo-dev? I would answer that, but I would be answering a quiz question. Of which the answer can be found in our online documentation. > but I really > do not understand why that should mean users are not allowed to contribute > as you suggested in your other post. If two devs are having an issue they are trying to work out. Community involvement is likely to make that issue larger and worse. Which could result in a user siding with a dev, dev getting upset and bailing or etc. Instead of the two devs left to work out their problems on their own. If they can't they take it to devrel or etc. When users get involved in that, it mucks things up. We then have to start using words like moderation and etc. > As for moderation, the simple fact is that your devs have neither the time > nor the experience to do such a job. I have some ideas there that I need to run by others first. I will then GLEP it and put it out there for all :) > Good luck with reinventing everything and discussing the same stuff you have > for the last year that led to the formation of the Proctors. Making changes and evolving is not reinvention. Quit many things aren't being changed. > I accept that > the decision to disband them has been taken, although it seems odd that no > notification of the meeting which led to this latest change was given. Pretty sure there are always notifications of council meetings. Although not sure such notification is required per any policy. > Obviously I think this is a major strategic error, and it's sad that rather > than one member admit a mistake, the present Council has to override the > consensus that took so long to reach. Reversing a past decision is itself a form a admitting a mistake or error. Or that trying something new didn't work as expected or etc. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Smoother moderation scheme?
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 10:24 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: >> Alin N?stac wrote: >> >> > Do you have a solution to filter flamefests out of a ml? If you do, >> > please share it with the list. >> >> Please give one example of a mailing list plagued by flamefests that >> successfully solved their problems by adopting moderation without >> completely alienating their communities. > > With two lists we could potentially reduce a single unified bonfire into > two controlled burns :) > You already have two lists. Your argument that core is for more private stuff, but not developer communication seems odd. My impression (never having seen a core message) is that core doesn't actually function that well, since dev v dev flames spill onto this list. If you are saying that all developer discussion is supposed to happen on dev, fine, but I really do not understand why that should mean users are not allowed to contribute as you suggested in your other post. As for moderation, the simple fact is that your devs have neither the time nor the experience to do such a job. The ones that have the inclination should probably be kept from it, in the same way that those who lust after power should never get it. If you want the list to function of course you need to have moderators who can suspend access or warn people to back off. When my access was suspended, I didn't like it but I accepted the team's decision-- because it was a team decision, from experienced moderators, not just the decision of some random dev. Good luck with reinventing everything and discussing the same stuff you have for the last year that led to the formation of the Proctors. I accept that the decision to disband them has been taken, although it seems odd that no notification of the meeting which led to this latest change was given. Obviously I think this is a major strategic error, and it's sad that rather than one member admit a mistake, the present Council has to override the consensus that took so long to reach. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
