Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 19:31:36
Message-Id: 1495567878.1556.4.camel@gentoo.org
1 Hi, everyone.
2
3 I'd like to request Infra to establish a new mailing list that would
4 fill in the gap between our public mailing lists and the gentoo-core
5 mailing list.
6
7 Name: gentoo-dev-internal
8
9 Topic: technical discussions between active Gentoo contributors
10
11 Restrictions:
12
13 - public (open subscription), initially we may optionally copy all
14 subscribers from gentoo-dev so that they do not miss discussion,
15
16 - archived,
17
18 - but posting restricted to opt-in member group.
19
20 Initially, the posting group would include active Gentoo developers
21 only. Afterwards, we will deploy a small moderator team whose purpose
22 would be controlling access to the list -- including both adding new
23 members on request and removing existing members (including developers)
24 if they misbehave.
25
26 I don't think we need to precisely define the rules for admitting new
27 members. I think the exact procedure would be at moderators' discretion
28 and would depend on the current 'health' of candidates -- i.e. if things
29 go calm they may just admit on request, and if people start abusing this
30 they will force explicit moderation before whitelisting.
31
32
33 Rationale
34 =========
35
36 The purpose of gentoo-dev is to allow technical discussion between
37 contributors to Gentoo, especially including making it possible for
38 developers to send RFCs and discuss their ideas.
39
40 Sadly, it is not uncommon for threads on that mailing list to turn into
41 trollfests, get deranged or hijacked into completely different topics.
42 Things are so bad that the mailing list stops serving its purpose. It
43 involves a number of consequences:
44
45 a. The developers lose time on the mailing lists instead of using it for
46 constructive purposes. Even skimming through those mails in search of
47 something remotely relevant is time-consuming.
48
49 b. The developers and contributors become discouraged and unsubscribe
50 from the mailing list. As a result, audience for reviews and RFCs
51 becomes smaller and even less focused on the topic.
52
53 c. The developers become discouraged and stop sending their ideas.
54 Either they do less, use another media or work in complete isolation
55 from other community members.
56
57 d. Eventually, the developers become tired of the persisting issues
58 and they retire (yes, it's a fact).
59
60 Other ideas on solving those issues were pretty much rejected already:
61
62 1. Bans on persisting violators were rejected as they are easily worked
63 around via subscribing from another e-mail address, and causing more
64 noise than the original issue.
65
66 2. Full-scale moderation of mail on gentoo-dev was rejected because of
67 technical limitations and the resulting high level of effort in handling
68 the moderation, plus the social effect.
69
70 3. Making gentoo-dev@ opt-in (like the suggested new list) would make it
71 much harder for users to contribute ideas, and would inevitably
72 discourage some of the users from writing.
73
74 All that considered, establishing a second mailing list with different
75 characteristic seems like a reasonable solution. In particular:
76
77 A. It gives a wider choice of tools for developers (and privileged
78 contributors) -- they can choose either the open or restricted mailing
79 list depending on the type of requested feedback.
80
81 B. The gentoo-dev mailing list is still open for power users
82 and contributors to submit their own ideas, and with no moderation
83 the discussion can proceed naturally.
84
85 C. The cost of moderation should be relatively low, and the methods can
86 be dynamically adjusted to fit the needs. In particular, good behavior
87 on gentoo-dev can be used to grant access to gentoo-dev-internal without
88 further requirements.
89
90 D. The restricted mailing list should be resilient to ban evasion since
91 the access is opt-in, and the moderators team can enforce direct
92 moderation of new members if there is a considerable risk.
93
94 Your comments?
95
96 --
97 Best regards,
98 Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies