Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

2017-12-20 Thread R0b0t1
On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Aaron W. Swenson  wrote:
> According to Merriam-Webster:
>
> self-evident
>  adjective | self-ev·i·dent | ˌself-ˈe-və-dənt , -ˌdent
>  evident without proof or reasoning
>

The version I used is taken from http://dd.pangyre.org/s/self-evident.html.

> You have been a part of the conversations that devolved into the
> non-technical, and even started your own decidedly non-technical
> discussion on this list[1] where you’ve seen that rules for moderation,
> or at least defining the expectations of moderators and participants,
> would have been beneficial.
>

Yes, it was non-technical, but it was related to Gentoo and most
importantly the stability of my operating system, which is why I
bothered to comment. I want to stress I am not opposed to moderation,
but so far the reason why things are happening and the specific things
being proposed do not seem to be well justified.

If, like in the past, decisions will be enforced more or less
arbitrarily and opaquely, I can only see this causing more problems. I
suppose the problems may be quieter.

Cheers,
 R0b0t1



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

2017-12-20 Thread R0b0t1
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Nils Freydank  wrote:
> There is a specific RFC about splitting the mailing list because of a
> problematic style of conversation.
>

Well, yes - but what is problematic? Certain parties keep vaguely
alluding to past actions, which is what I am inquiring about.

> Even if that split won’t happen -- I don’t know if mgorny has the "right" or
> support to do that and I personally want to stay out of these discussions -- I
> really *do* think that a moderation of a frequented mailing list like gentoo-
> dev is a generally good idea. Therefore we need properly documented rules
> (beside moderators).
>

I don't like being here either, but after using Gentoo for a while
arbitrary actions taken by developers have broken my system, and poor
commit discipline has in cases made it very hard to figure out what
was changed and why.

This is an outgrowth of those things. If arbitrary choices are made
here and now arbitrary choices will keep being made elsewhere in the
future.

For some reason a lot of people seem to think my questions are
annoying. They're not supposed to be annoying. If a decision is
happening with purpose, then spending 30s to type out that purpose
should not be annoying.

> To answer you question: I think the RFC introduces either a "time pressure" or
> should be seen as sign that this list needs an improvement.
>

See reply to first paragraph; I mean specific events that make the OP
feel this is necessary.

Cheers,
 R0b0t1



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

2017-12-20 Thread Nils Freydank
Am Mittwoch, 20. Dezember 2017, 17:48:54 CET schrieb kuzetsa:
> On 12/16/2017 10:14 AM, Nils Freydank wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2017, 23:41:45 CET schrieb kuzetsa:
> >> On 12/05/2017 05:18 PM, Nils Freydank wrote:
> >>> 5. Reasons for warnings and bans
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> --snip--
> >>  --- other snip ---
> > 
> > Could you write a short paragraph for this?
> 
> Haven't been paying much attention to this thread.
> (I was quoted here - Point #c versus #d)
> 
> Am I being asked to write something up?
Yes, exactly that is what I’m asking for. I think your point c vs. d statement 
was that good it might be best if you’d write two or three sentences.

I’m not sure if the whole moderation approach will be followed anyway, but 
IMHO we should still give it a try.

-- 
GPG fingerprint: '766B 8122 1342 6912 3401 492A 8B54 D7A3 FF3C DB17'
Holgersson

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

2017-12-20 Thread kuzetsa
On 12/16/2017 10:14 AM, Nils Freydank wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2017, 23:41:45 CET schrieb kuzetsa:
>> On 12/05/2017 05:18 PM, Nils Freydank wrote:
>>> 5. Reasons for warnings and bans
>>> 
>> --snip--
>>
>>> c) spamming, i.e. flooding discussions with lots of messages in a row
>>> d) constant postings off topic, i.e. disrupting discussions with unrelated
>>> questions
>>>
>>> (constant means more than two times in a row)
>> Point #c versus #d
>>
>> #c - there can (and often are) good faith reasons for
>> multiple postings "in a row", such as when responding
>> to multiple threads, and/or to multiple posters within
>> the same thread. Even just people who are awake (and
>> would respond) at a time when other participants in the
>> list would be sleeping could complicate this rule.
> Valid point.
>
>> #d - definition for constant seems unnecessary. For an
>> alternative, maybe refine the definition to either
>> use a 72 hour window or similar, or even just a basic
>> expectation for discussion to be germane (on-topic)
>> with refusal to stay on-topic (when warned) being the
>> measure. Perhaps three strikes (per day?) are when
>> the enforcement could start. parliament / congress
>> and other formal assemblies have models for this.
> Sounds good to me. As spamming is *always* off topic
> this should even catch point c).
>
> Could you write a short paragraph for this?

Haven't been paying much attention to this thread.
(I was quoted here - Point #c versus #d)

Am I being asked to write something up?

Clarification would be appreciated.

- kuzetsa



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

2017-12-20 Thread Nils Freydank
Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2017, 23:41:45 CET schrieb kuzetsa:
> On 12/05/2017 05:18 PM, Nils Freydank wrote:
> > 5. Reasons for warnings and bans
> > 
> 
> --snip--
> 
> > c) spamming, i.e. flooding discussions with lots of messages in a row
> > d) constant postings off topic, i.e. disrupting discussions with unrelated
> > questions
> > 
> > (constant means more than two times in a row)
> 
> Point #c versus #d
> 
> #c - there can (and often are) good faith reasons for
> multiple postings "in a row", such as when responding
> to multiple threads, and/or to multiple posters within
> the same thread. Even just people who are awake (and
> would respond) at a time when other participants in the
> list would be sleeping could complicate this rule.
Valid point.

> #d - definition for constant seems unnecessary. For an
> alternative, maybe refine the definition to either
> use a 72 hour window or similar, or even just a basic
> expectation for discussion to be germane (on-topic)
> with refusal to stay on-topic (when warned) being the
> measure. Perhaps three strikes (per day?) are when
> the enforcement could start. parliament / congress
> and other formal assemblies have models for this.
Sounds good to me. As spamming is *always* off topic
this should even catch point c).

Could you write a short paragraph for this?

-- 
GPG fingerprint: '766B 8122 1342 6912 3401 492A 8B54 D7A3 FF3C DB17'
Holgersson

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

2017-12-20 Thread Nils Freydank
Am Freitag, 15. Dezember 2017, 17:59:59 CET schrieb Anton Molyboha:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Nils Freydank  wrote:
> > [snip]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 3. Moderation
> > -
> > The moderation team has to consist of at least two developers. The
> > moderators
> > have to do join the moderation team voluntarily.
> > 
> > "have to do join" should probably be "have to join"
> > 
> > 
> > [snip]
Sure, thanks! I don’t know if this is really necessary anyway. Maybe I read 
too many company related docs :-D

-- 
GPG fingerprint: '766B 8122 1342 6912 3401 492A 8B54 D7A3 FF3C DB17'
Holgersson

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

2017-12-20 Thread Nils Freydank
Am Freitag, 15. Dezember 2017, 23:37:48 CET schrieb R0b0t1:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Nils Freydank  wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> > 
> > with regards to the current mailing list (ML) split discussion, and one
> > specific message deep down there by mgorny asked for someone providing
> > moderator rules, I would like to propose the following ruleset for
> > gentoo-dev
> > 
> > Right now the situation escalated in a way that forces to actually do
> > something and I hope we can recreate an atmosphere where technical
> > improvements can happen.
> 
> To me, at least, this isn't self-evident. What specific actions make
> you think an immediate response is necessary?
> 
> self-evident
>   adj. Evident to one’s self and to nobody else.
> 
> Cheers,
>  R0b0t1
There is a specific RFC about splitting the mailing list because of a 
problematic style of conversation.

Even if that split won’t happen -- I don’t know if mgorny has the "right" or 
support to do that and I personally want to stay out of these discussions -- I 
really *do* think that a moderation of a frequented mailing list like gentoo-
dev is a generally good idea. Therefore we need properly documented rules 
(beside moderators).

To answer you question: I think the RFC introduces either a "time pressure" or
should be seen as sign that this list needs an improvement.

Regards,
Nils

--
GPG fingerprint: '766B 8122 1342 6912 3401 492A 8B54 D7A3 FF3C DB17'
Holgersson

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

2017-12-16 Thread Aaron W. Swenson
On 2017-12-15 16:37, R0b0t1 wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Nils Freydank  wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > with regards to the current mailing list (ML) split discussion, and one
> > specific message deep down there by mgorny asked for someone providing
> > moderator rules, I would like to propose the following ruleset for 
> > gentoo-dev
> >
> > Right now the situation escalated in a way that forces to actually do
> > something and I hope we can recreate an atmosphere where technical
> > improvements can happen.
> >
> 
> To me, at least, this isn't self-evident. What specific actions make
> you think an immediate response is necessary?
> 
> self-evident
>   adj. Evident to one’s self and to nobody else.
> 
> Cheers,
>  R0b0t1
> 

According to Merriam-Webster:

self-evident
 adjective | self-ev·i·dent | ˌself-ˈe-və-dənt , -ˌdent
 evident without proof or reasoning

You have been a part of the conversations that devolved into the
non-technical, and even started your own decidedly non-technical
discussion on this list[1] where you’ve seen that rules for moderation,
or at least defining the expectations of moderators and participants,
would have been beneficial.

[1]: 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

2017-12-15 Thread R0b0t1
Hello,

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Nils Freydank  wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> with regards to the current mailing list (ML) split discussion, and one
> specific message deep down there by mgorny asked for someone providing
> moderator rules, I would like to propose the following ruleset for gentoo-dev
>
> Right now the situation escalated in a way that forces to actually do
> something and I hope we can recreate an atmosphere where technical
> improvements can happen.
>

To me, at least, this isn't self-evident. What specific actions make
you think an immediate response is necessary?

self-evident
  adj. Evident to one’s self and to nobody else.

Cheers,
 R0b0t1



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

2017-12-15 Thread Anton Molyboha
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Nils Freydank  wrote:

> [snip]
>


> 3. Moderation
> -
> The moderation team has to consist of at least two developers. The
> moderators
> have to do join the moderation team voluntarily.
>
> "have to do join" should probably be "have to join"


> [snip]
>


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

2017-12-05 Thread kuzetsa


On 12/05/2017 05:18 PM, Nils Freydank wrote:
> 5. Reasons for warnings and bans
> 
--snip--
> c) spamming, i.e. flooding discussions with lots of messages in a row
> d) constant postings off topic, i.e. disrupting discussions with unrelated 
> questions
>   (constant means more than two times in a row)

Point #c versus #d

#c - there can (and often are) good faith reasons for
multiple postings "in a row", such as when responding
to multiple threads, and/or to multiple posters within
the same thread. Even just people who are awake (and
would respond) at a time when other participants in the
list would be sleeping could complicate this rule.

#d - definition for constant seems unnecessary. For an
alternative, maybe refine the definition to either
use a 72 hour window or similar, or even just a basic
expectation for discussion to be germane (on-topic)
with refusal to stay on-topic (when warned) being the
measure. Perhaps three strikes (per day?) are when
the enforcement could start. parliament / congress
and other formal assemblies have models for this.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature