My 2 cents as forum moderator.
We agreed on the forum to reject spam only. Therefore, we do not filter such
question when they come (but they are rather rare).
In such case we move them to the "General discussion" section with the
appropriate wording.
Note that allowing such questions increases the chances to get a hit when users
search the web with the same keywords (ok, they have to do so first). So it may
help spare further similar questions.
Hagar
Le 02/12/2014 23:41, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit :
I support what Simon proposes to do for the following reasons:
1. We are talking about posts to users #oo.a.o from non-subscribers, so they
have to be moderated *somehow.*
2. There has never been, in my recollection, any occasion where one of those
posts that has not been met by a response that is exactly what Simon is
proposing to provide and suggests that all moderators provide as an automatic
courtesy to those requests for support.
3. This is most likely to be a consistent, civil response.
4. It will save an administrator or other having to forward replies from
folks who don't know the OP is not subscribed and reply only to the list.
5. It will save the Op's request being immortalized on the list archive.
Simon could have simply instituted this practice on his own and we'd not be the
wiser. Instead, he raised the issue as a practice for all moderators, giving
other moderators and list participants an opportunity to weigh in.
I, for one, am willing to accept Simon's treatment of this specific case and
thank him for it. Other moderators can say what they will or won't do. I
don't think there is a slavish following of a blind principle of any value in
this instance.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 13:51
To: users@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Quick Office Pro
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Dave Barton <d...@tasit.net> wrote:
Simon Phipps wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Dave Barton <d...@tasit.net> wrote:
Simon Phipps wrote:
MODERATORS: I have started rejecting incoming e-mails like this one
with a
message stating that QuickOffice is unrelated to Apache and AOO and
they
should contact their supplier. I suggest other moderators adopt the
same
approach.
S.
-1
We are MODERATORS, not the list police.
Please explain why you believe questions about QuickOffice are in-scope
for
this list and thus should not be rejected by moderators?
Thanks,
S.
I do not claim that questions about Quick Office Pro are in-scope for
the list. My objection is based on the principle, not the Quick Office
Pro issue itself. As per my reply to Jim, I maintain that, in accordance
with ASF guidelines, it is not our responsibility to answer posts on
behalf of the list (albeit by way of rejection notices), or make
arbitrary decisions about what the list should or shouldn't see or have
to deal with.
I'd welcome other views as I think this outlook is pedantic. Rejecting
irrelevant spam is not "answering posts".
As inconvenient (probably irritating) as it is for list subscribers to
see this kind of post, we stand at the top of a very slippery slope if
we, as individuals, start making this kind of unilateral arbitrary
decision. Many times I see posts held for moderation where my gut
reaction might be "What the .... has this to do with AOO" or "Oh ....
this is just another meaningless rant". Do I arbitrarily go with my gut
reaction and reject it (with a sweet little note), or do I follow the
ASF guidelines and allow the list subscribers deal with posts to THEIR
list as THEY see fit?
I'm not suggesting filtering or answering relevant forum traffic in any
way, especially not the sort of posts you refer to. QuickOffice posts are
effectively spam and I am suggesting the moderators treat them as they do
the other spam arriving in the queue, except with a polite response to the
confused originator instead of just ignoring them.
I propose that, if the ASF/AOO PMC and more importantly the list
subscribers, want us to act as (in my opinion) list police, we put this
proposal forward and if accepted/approved we set up some kind of
arrangement (eg. a wiki page) to coordinate, agree or compromise on
these matters
That's overkill for this specific case. -1
S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
