1 |
W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶52 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner |
2 |
napisał: |
3 |
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > Hello, everyone. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it |
8 |
> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's |
9 |
> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists |
10 |
> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > Problems |
14 |
> > ======== |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo- |
17 |
> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally |
18 |
> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some |
19 |
> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three: |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including |
22 |
> > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may |
23 |
> > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same |
24 |
> > person are seriously demotivating to everyone. |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand. |
27 |
> > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is |
28 |
> > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails |
29 |
> > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes |
30 |
> > you don't even get a single on-topic reply. |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing |
33 |
> > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask |
34 |
> > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug |
35 |
> > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one. |
36 |
> > |
37 |
> > |
38 |
> > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to |
39 |
> > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get |
40 |
> > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers |
41 |
> > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their |
42 |
> > activity. |
43 |
> > |
44 |
> > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply, |
45 |
> > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind |
46 |
> > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list! |
47 |
> |
48 |
> |
49 |
> > |
50 |
> > Proposal |
51 |
> > ======== |
52 |
> > |
53 |
> > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to |
54 |
> > establish the following changes to the mailing lists: |
55 |
> > |
56 |
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be |
57 |
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers. |
58 |
> > |
59 |
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open. |
60 |
> > |
61 |
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access |
62 |
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer. |
63 |
> |
64 |
> |
65 |
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide |
66 |
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers. |
67 |
> > |
68 |
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now. |
69 |
> > |
70 |
> > |
71 |
> > Rationale |
72 |
> > ========= |
73 |
> > |
74 |
> > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I |
75 |
> > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other |
76 |
> > options to no avail. |
77 |
> > |
78 |
> > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list |
79 |
> > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure |
80 |
> > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve |
81 |
> > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were: |
82 |
> > |
83 |
> > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions |
84 |
> > create more noise than leaving the issue as is. |
85 |
> > |
86 |
> > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure |
87 |
> > hate speech that carries no value to anyone]. |
88 |
> > |
89 |
> > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people |
90 |
> > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months]. |
91 |
> > |
92 |
> |
93 |
> A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposing. |
94 |
> The only difference is |
95 |
> that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post. |
96 |
> But lets say hyptothetically |
97 |
> Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev |
98 |
> list. If ComRel will not take any action |
99 |
> (due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo? |
100 |
|
101 |
Well, I believe the main difference is that the approval process makes |
102 |
it harder to evade a ban. |
103 |
|
104 |
If you need a voice, you need to get a developer to vouch for you. |
105 |
If you have just been banned, you won't immediately regain the access |
106 |
for the same identity. And unless you've actively maintaining a second |
107 |
identity for yourself, you won't get immediate access to evade the ban. |
108 |
|
109 |
Yes, it only solves the problem temporarily. However, 'temporarily' is |
110 |
sometimes enough to avoid the immediate 'shitstorm' (I'm sorry for |
111 |
lacking a better word for it) that results in some people not being able |
112 |
to accept their ban. |
113 |
|
114 |
As for point B, I believe that there is also a serious difference when |
115 |
the user is pointed to another channel where he can express his opinion |
116 |
freely. |
117 |
|
118 |
> This isn't to say I advocate against trying, but it might just end up the |
119 |
> same as today. |
120 |
> |
121 |
> |
122 |
> > |
123 |
> > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore |
124 |
> > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right |
125 |
> > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't |
126 |
> > really solve the problem because: |
127 |
> > |
128 |
> > I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if |
129 |
> > nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying |
130 |
> > to themselves. |
131 |
> > |
132 |
> > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will |
133 |
> > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly |
134 |
> > be lured into discussing with them. |
135 |
> > |
136 |
> > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it |
137 |
> > silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because |
138 |
> > the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen |
139 |
> > as a sign of shameful silent admittance. |
140 |
> > |
141 |
> |
142 |
> So now we only silently consent to misbehavior on mailing lists besides |
143 |
> 'gentoo-dev'? |
144 |
|
145 |
Yes, that's pretty much the idea. I have failed to convince people who |
146 |
could solve the problem to do so. So I'm falling back to cleaning up my |
147 |
own backyard to at least solve one part of the problem that particularly |
148 |
bothers me. |
149 |
|
150 |
-- |
151 |
Best regards, |
152 |
Michał Górny |