| 1 |
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> A. It gives a wider choice of tools for developers (and privileged |
| 4 |
> contributors) -- they can choose either the open or restricted mailing |
| 5 |
> list depending on the type of requested feedback. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> B. The gentoo-dev mailing list is still open for power users |
| 8 |
> and contributors to submit their own ideas, and with no moderation |
| 9 |
> the discussion can proceed naturally. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Wouldn't those inclined to do so simply crosspost threads to the |
| 13 |
unmoderated list? Then people will feel the need to respond to those |
| 14 |
posts for all the reasons they reply to those posts already. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Maybe that would not happen if the unmoderated list essentially |
| 17 |
becomes unused and has few subscribers, but in that case we are |
| 18 |
potentially turning away contributions. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Also, given the reluctance to moderate anything around here in |
| 21 |
general, do we think that the moderated list would actually be |
| 22 |
moderated if it is after-the-fact? The one advantage of requiring |
| 23 |
moderation a priori is that it requires somebody to affirm "yes, this |
| 24 |
post adds to the discussion" vs having to decide "do I want to be the |
| 25 |
one to ban user xyz from the list and deal with the fallout?" |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That said, it does address the sock puppet issue to a large degree, |
| 28 |
unless somebody wants to be fairly painstaking at it. (And if they're |
| 29 |
willing to go to that much trouble we'd need to be screening IDs to |
| 30 |
keep them out. There is no reason somebody couldn't go through |
| 31 |
recruitment as a dev 14 times today.) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives