Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated
* Alfred M. Szmidt: >> I placed the list on moderation to help with cooling down heated >> discussions. It is entirely within the normal bounds of list >> management to use moderation. > >It's actually very unusual to see this on technical/FOSS lists. Some >communities have secret and not-so-secret bans for individual users, >but switching entire lists to pre-moderation is not something that >I've seen often, not even during periods of intense conflict. > > It is even more unusual for GNU lists, we have always eskewed > moderation. Instead the list membership is controlled, and sometimes the lists themselves are kept secret. I don't think that's an improvement. And it's also highly unusual.
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated
> I placed the list on moderation to help with cooling down heated > discussions. It is entirely within the normal bounds of list > management to use moderation. It's actually very unusual to see this on technical/FOSS lists. Some communities have secret and not-so-secret bans for individual users, but switching entire lists to pre-moderation is not something that I've seen often, not even during periods of intense conflict. It is even more unusual for GNU lists, we have always eskewed moderation.
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated
* DJ Delorie [2019-10-30 18:21]: > Dora Scilipoti writes: > > Oh! I thought the conversations here were started to talk about a new > > governance model specifically for GNU. > > Well... it's all related, but each sub-project in GNU itself needs a > local governance model, and even if it's different than the top-level > GNU model, they interact, so there's room for discussion there too. > > In the glibc case, the topic started when the maintainers couldn't reach > consensus on a change, and we didn't have a way to move forward. > Remember, the glibc case, we have nine stewards (official maintainers), > 70 listed maintainers (developers), and 490 copyright assignments. > Running glibc is more complicated than running a small one-developer > project, even if (or especially when) RMS gets involved. > > Also remember that glibc is on its third major governance model (I > think) - dictator, committee, and consensus. >From Wordnet: * Overview of noun dictator The noun dictator has 3 senses (no senses from tagged texts) 1. dictator -- (a speaker who dictates to a secretary or a recording machine) 2. dictator, potentate -- (a ruler who is unconstrained by law) 3. authoritarian, dictator -- (a person who behaves in a tyrannical manner; "my boss is a dictator who makes everyone work overtime") I don't mind comparing anything to governments yet GNU project is not government, it is planetary and way beyond any of governments, it spready by its philosophy and people who simply like it. A term "dictator" has negative connotations and the dictator we speak about is everything else but dictator. Replacement: founder 2. (1) founder, beginner, founding father, father -- (a person who founds or establishes some institution; "George Washington is the father of his country") he he... am I too picky?
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated
Jean Louis writes: > 2. dictator, potentate -- (a ruler who is unconstrained by law) > 3. authoritarian, dictator -- (a person who behaves in a tyrannical > manner; "my boss is a dictator who makes everyone work overtime") These. It was Uli at the time. The experience was very negative.
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated
Dora Scilipoti writes: > Oh! I thought the conversations here were started to talk about a new > governance model specifically for GNU. Well... it's all related, but each sub-project in GNU itself needs a local governance model, and even if it's different than the top-level GNU model, they interact, so there's room for discussion there too. In the glibc case, the topic started when the maintainers couldn't reach consensus on a change, and we didn't have a way to move forward. Remember, the glibc case, we have nine stewards (official maintainers), 70 listed maintainers (developers), and 490 copyright assignments. Running glibc is more complicated than running a small one-developer project, even if (or especially when) RMS gets involved. Also remember that glibc is on its third major governance model (I think) - dictator, committee, and consensus.
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated
* Dora Scilipoti [2019-10-30 04:37]: > Hello, > > almost five days after submitting my request for subscription, it was > finally approved. And a few hours before the approval happened, the > moderation rules were updated with yet more restrictions, and this > particular point: > > Tue, 29 Oct 2019 10:31:37 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > And for governance discussions, they should stay on topic and be about > > governance. Discussions about individuals and their capabilities are > > off topic. > > What if I want to propose a governance model that includes someone as > head of a committee, for example. Am I not allowed to name and talk > about the qualities of the person I consider relevant for the position? In regards to governance of GNU Project: - there shall be one division that takes care of exact wordings of the founder, all of the articles of the free software philosophy, including how founder was running the project, write-up of his responsibilities and duties, that would be "Planning Department" within Executive Division. There shall be one person or group of persons responsible in that department and also independent of everybody else in the organization, independent financially, maybe financed or paid by the FSF or by one percentage of donations or one fixed fee -- but with authority to bring any other staff member or position in the organization on the good course of action, back to the original direction as written and planned by the founder. That could be an attorney or attorney office even. They would need to have full authority over those actions. Even them could be replaced if people loyal to free software philosophy object in a certain manner and petition them. Let's call this position "Stallman's Works" or "Philosophy Officer" - then organization would need to be run in the same manner as it was run in successful manner in past. There could be chairman, presidents, staff members, etc. It does not matter. They would propose plans of actions, and they would adopt plans of actions. "Philosophy Officer" could strengthen such plans, or could object if they are not aligned with the philosophy. For example introduction of "open source" terminology should not be promoted on the main website. Even though individual contributors or maintainers are allowed to express their opinions as they wish. Not everybody need to be true to GNU Project "policies", but within the core organization, they shall remain true and promote it well. For example, if RMS was holding 50 speeches per year, such shall be continued, as that was successful action and "Philosophy Officer" would need to assign speeches to various people and also make sure that speakers give the message of free software philosophy, and not that they deviate in subjects like "which features of Windows or GNU are better or different to each other" -- as such subject would be contrary to free software philosophy, there is no alternative to proprietary software neither features are focus of the philsophy, we don't use proprietary software. Staying on purpose is important. RMS is handling community in very calm manner, he let people be most of time, that is not something that is written, but the manner of his handlings could be written down for the "Philosophy Officer" to understand and continue with it. RMS is opponent of censorship, when there was objection to the joke in glibc manual, and joke was about mainly about "Federal Censorship", which was construed as being "abort" joke, somebody proposed to censor the joke of the federal censorship. Unix and GNU and computing in general is accompanied of all kinds of jokes. The manner of handling a joke and insisting that it is brought back is also fight for the free speech and human rights. It is fight for what is right. That is one example, and such manner of handling issues (which is not written) is equally important in running the GNU organization just as the free software philosophy (which is written). In general, there shall be a write-up of all duties, positions, including contacts to organizations, and individuals which are important allies, and such write up better be signed by GPG, and published or accessible to those who are within the core organization. Jean
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated
Dora Scilipoti writes: > What if I want to propose a governance model that includes someone as > head of a committee, for example. Am I not allowed to name and talk > about the qualities of the person I consider relevant for the position? *Here* it's reasonable to talk about how the *model* works - a committee with a singular head, vs for example multiple heads, or no committee at all. If you want to *implement* that model in your project, the topic of which person to choose as committee head belongs in your project's mailing list. I think that's an appropriate divide between globally-useful information, and project-specific information.
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated
On 10/29/2019 11:41 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > I think that's an appropriate divide between globally-useful > information, and project-specific information. Oh! I thought the conversations here were started to talk about a new governance model specifically for GNU. -- Dora Scilipoti GNU Education Team gnu.org/education
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated
Hello, almost five days after submitting my request for subscription, it was finally approved. And a few hours before the approval happened, the moderation rules were updated with yet more restrictions, and this particular point: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 10:31:37 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > And for governance discussions, they should stay on topic and be about > governance. Discussions about individuals and their capabilities are > off topic. What if I want to propose a governance model that includes someone as head of a committee, for example. Am I not allowed to name and talk about the qualities of the person I consider relevant for the position? -- Dora Scilipoti GNU Education Team gnu.org/education
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated
"Carlos O'Donell" wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:21 AM Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Mark Wielaard wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 05:22:48AM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> >> Iʼd like to report that my message number d0eidcqu.321...@gmail.com >> >> (below), sent a day ago to gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org (which I am >> >> subscribed on and usually have no problems to post to), had not landed to >> >> the archive [0] for unknown reason — I did not get any failure >> >> notification. >> > >> > The list is [pre]moderated, simply wait till a moderator accepts or >> > rejects your messages. >> >> Funny. Either the moderators were so efficient earlier so I never noticed >> that, or thatʼs a fairly recent policy, that was introduced secretly (I do >> not see any announcement). May I ask, which it is? > > I placed the list on moderation to help with cooling down heated discussions. Thank you for clarification. I (and, I dare suppose, others too) will appreciate, if the next radical change in policy (in either direction) will be publicly announced to prevent misinterpretations. > It is entirely within the normal bounds of list management to use moderation. (Un)fortunately, I am not familiar with the list management within these bounds, so could you enlighen me, how should I get known, that my letter is rejected by a censor? Will I get a notification with the reason explained? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated
On Mon, 2019-10-28 at 16:28 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > In this case the intent was to keep the conversations on topic for the > list in question as documented for gnu-misc-discuss: > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss (which I > didn't write). So specifically for this list: Flaming is out of place. Tit-for-tat is not welcome. Repetition should not occur. Good READING and writing are expected. Before posting, wait a while, cool off, and think. So take your time to reply and think whether you actually have a new point to make, or if you are just restating your opinion again. If possible bundle your replies to several messages. Restricting yourself to just one message a day to the list is not a bad thing. Don't just reply to every message repeating your opinion or have a tit- for-tat discussion with just one member of the list. Also consider addressing the list directly and remove individuals from the CC to prevent a rapid fire back-and-forth between two people simply disagreeing without the messages even having made it to the list yet. Make sure you have read the kind communication guide: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html Some important points from that: Assume other participants are posting in good faith, even if you disagree with what they say. Please do not criticize people for wrongs that you only speculate they may have done; stick to what they actually say and actually do. Please respond to what people actually said, not to exaggerations of their views. Your criticism will not be constructive if it is aimed at a target other than their real views. If in a discussion someone brings up a tangent to the topic at hand, please keep the discussion on track by focusing on the current topic rather than the tangent. If you think the tangent is an important and pertinent issue, please bring it up as a separate discussion, with a Subject field to fit, and consider waiting for the end of the current discussion. And for governance discussions, they should stay on topic and be about governance. Discussions about individuals and their capabilities are off topic. Thanks, Mark
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 4:30 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Carlos O'Donell: > > > The GNU C Library main development list was pre-moderated for almost 5 > > years. During that period we moved a lot of conversations to the glibc > > help mailing list using moderation. This helped new users get started > > in a more welcoming environment. Just an example of a public technical > > FOSS list that used moderation. Most people didn't know it was > > pre-moderated. > > Interesting. When was this? This must have been at a time when > contributing to glibc was … difficult for non-technical reasons, right? The moderation was in effect from 2008-2012. Yes, contributing to glibc was difficult at this time for non-technical reasons. Cheers, Carlos.
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated
* Carlos O'Donell: > I placed the list on moderation to help with cooling down heated > discussions. It is entirely within the normal bounds of list > management to use moderation. It's actually very unusual to see this on technical/FOSS lists. Some communities have secret and not-so-secret bans for individual users, but switching entire lists to pre-moderation is not something that I've seen often, not even during periods of intense conflict.
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated
* Carlos O'Donell: > The GNU C Library main development list was pre-moderated for almost 5 > years. During that period we moved a lot of conversations to the glibc > help mailing list using moderation. This helped new users get started > in a more welcoming environment. Just an example of a public technical > FOSS list that used moderation. Most people didn't know it was > pre-moderated. Interesting. When was this? This must have been at a time when contributing to glibc was … difficult for non-technical reasons, right?
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 4:10 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Carlos O'Donell: > > > I placed the list on moderation to help with cooling down heated > > discussions. It is entirely within the normal bounds of list > > management to use moderation. > > It's actually very unusual to see this on technical/FOSS lists. Some > communities have secret and not-so-secret bans for individual users, > but switching entire lists to pre-moderation is not something that > I've seen often, not even during periods of intense conflict. I don't have enough data to say if it's rare or not. The GNU C Library main development list was pre-moderated for almost 5 years. During that period we moved a lot of conversations to the glibc help mailing list using moderation. This helped new users get started in a more welcoming environment. Just an example of a public technical FOSS list that used moderation. Most people didn't know it was pre-moderated. In this case the intent was to keep the conversations on topic for the list in question as documented for gnu-misc-discuss: https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss (which I didn't write). Cheers, Carlos.
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated (was: ML posting issues)
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:21 AM Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 05:22:48AM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: > >> Iʼd like to report that my message number d0eidcqu.321...@gmail.com > >> (below), sent a day ago to gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org (which I am subscribed > >> on and usually have no problems to post to), had not landed to the archive > >> [0] for unknown reason — I did not get any failure notification. > > > > The list is [pre]moderated, simply wait till a moderator accepts or rejects > > your messages. > > Funny. Either the moderators were so efficient earlier so I never noticed > that, or thatʼs a fairly recent policy, that was introduced secretly (I do > not see any announcement). May I ask, which it is? I placed the list on moderation to help with cooling down heated discussions. It is entirely within the normal bounds of list management to use moderation. Cheers, Carlos.
Re: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org is premoderated (was: ML posting issues)
Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 05:22:48AM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> Iʼd like to report that my message number d0eidcqu.321...@gmail.com (below), >> sent a day ago to gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org (which I am subscribed on and >> usually have no problems to post to), had not landed to the archive [0] for >> unknown reason — I did not get any failure notification. > > The list is [pre]moderated, simply wait till a moderator accepts or rejects > your messages. Funny. Either the moderators were so efficient earlier so I never noticed that, or thatʼs a fairly recent policy, that was introduced secretly (I do not see any announcement). May I ask, which it is? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
