| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Jan Kundrát wrote: |
| 5 |
> Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 6 |
>> zombieswift/new devs -project |
| 7 |
>> council/trustee nominations -project |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I |
| 10 |
> thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous |
| 11 |
> content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I thought the goal was more to separate technical and non-technical |
| 15 |
content - as most of the heavy-reply emails on -dev were non-technical |
| 16 |
in nature. The politics/etc could go on -project. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
As somebody else pointed out in a reply to one of my emails (which I |
| 19 |
totally agree with) - flames (aka poisonous content) aren't welcome |
| 20 |
anywhere. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If anything of any importance at all gets discussed on -dev, then all |
| 23 |
the non-technical stuff will end up on -dev as well and nothing will be |
| 24 |
accomplished by having the new list. Developers who are interested in |
| 25 |
participating in politics (devrel, CoC debates, user-relation |
| 26 |
discussions, etc) should subscribe to -project. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
One thing I want to caution is a potentially-dangerous mindset that a |
| 29 |
flame is any post that one personally disagrees with - or which a |
| 30 |
majority of developers disagree with. Flames are more about attitude |
| 31 |
and intent - not so much about viewpoint. As an example I tended to |
| 32 |
disagree with the point you were raising, but I'd hope we could agree |
| 33 |
that I'm attempting to be constructive in my reply and that I'm trying |
| 34 |
to focus on what is good for Gentoo and not my personal agenda. If I |
| 35 |
had just replied with a one-liner of some sort it would be less |
| 36 |
constructive. Even so, this is inherently a political discussion and |
| 37 |
those devs on this list who would prefer to just work on their herds and |
| 38 |
not worry about moderation/ CoC/ religious positions on package |
| 39 |
managers/ etc. would probably prefer that it took place on -project - |
| 40 |
not because the debate isn't important, but simply because it isn't what |
| 41 |
they're interested in reading about. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I've participated in moderated lists which weren't perceived as |
| 44 |
one-sided or as creating a division between valued and unvalued posters. |
| 45 |
Often a majority of posts are moderated, and the only thing the |
| 46 |
moderator does is determine whether the post adds value to the |
| 47 |
conversation. One-liners get rejected regardless of who sends them - |
| 48 |
and genuine arguments get accepted regardless of where they line up |
| 49 |
against the party view. Such lists benefit from a diversity of opinions |
| 50 |
and don't get as bogged-down in groupthink. They also tend to be more |
| 51 |
inviting to outsiders. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Flames really shouldn't be welcome on any list. I know there are |
| 54 |
posters on this list that drive most of the devs crazy - and it is easy |
| 55 |
for me to just say not to fight fire with fire. I know that when devs |
| 56 |
do reply with one-liners nobody thinks less of them for it as a result |
| 57 |
(I am not certain I'd act any differently if I were in their shoes). |
| 58 |
However, that isn't good for the project - it tends to create a strong |
| 59 |
core team that circles the wagons against outside dissent - which is |
| 60 |
good when the dissent is just an annoying party of raiders, but it can |
| 61 |
lead to less flexibility and an unwillingness to tolerate dissent of any |
| 62 |
kind. I'm sure the XFree86 team is still a tight-knit group that is |
| 63 |
happy with the licensing decision they made some time ago, even though |
| 64 |
as a result they're almost entirely irrelevant to the FOSS world now. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
I think the -dev / -project division is good, and I think it will make a |
| 67 |
lot of devs happy - if for no other reason than they don't need to read |
| 68 |
discussions like this one... :) However, if anybody thinks that it |
| 69 |
will succeed in getting rid of certain unpopular voices on this list I |
| 70 |
think they will be disappointed - they will go where the discussion is. |
| 71 |
At best the division will let people choose what discussion they |
| 72 |
participate in - not who participates in those discussions. Maybe we |
| 73 |
can just be optimistic that at some point we'll learn how to disagree |
| 74 |
maturely... |
| 75 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 76 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) |
| 77 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
iD8DBQFGpBM3G4/rWKZmVWkRAglhAJ9AYoXcvhIYd5hMYQBElNm4CMfgWACgqEoD |
| 80 |
n8pSc8R9O1cpAezKxAEnaaY= |
| 81 |
=XqMN |
| 82 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives