1 |
Am Sonntag, 3. Dezember 2017, 22:43:19 CET schrieb Michał Górny: |
2 |
> W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 21∶30 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan |
3 |
> Ochtman napisał: |
4 |
> > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be |
7 |
> > > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers. |
8 |
> > > |
9 |
> > > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open. |
10 |
> > > |
11 |
> > > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access |
12 |
> > > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer. |
13 |
> > > |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be |
16 |
> > better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who |
17 |
> > move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold |
18 |
> > the specific posts if necessary? |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj |
21 |
> has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did, |
22 |
> moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low- |
23 |
> traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide |
27 |
> > > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers. |
28 |
> > > |
29 |
> > > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now. |
30 |
> > > |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> > I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the |
33 |
> > audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from |
34 |
> > existing mailing lists? |
35 |
> |
36 |
> The audience is expect users who usually don't need basic support |
37 |
> but instead want to discuss the development of Gentoo and want to have |
38 |
> some impact on where it goes. |
39 |
> |
40 |
> The main goal is to be able to restore more developers to gentoo-dev@, |
41 |
> and be able to focus it on feedback and reviews. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> In other words, the goal is that if the attitude on gentoo-expert |
44 |
> becomes impossible to bear, the developers can unsubscribe from that |
45 |
> list without actually losing the ability to give feedback on important |
46 |
> Gentoo issues. |
47 |
If core Gentoo developers don't read the expert list, I'm not seeing a high |
48 |
value in such a list. |
49 |
|
50 |
I'm a long term Gentoo user, but have read this list a few month only, so |
51 |
correct me, if I'm wrong. I've seen the main usage of this list in three |
52 |
aspects: |
53 |
1. Review and discussion of new (technical) features (eclasses, EAPI, package |
54 |
manager specs). |
55 |
2. Information about unmaintained packages. |
56 |
3. Input and proposals from users. |
57 |
|
58 |
Splitting the list would reduce the meaning of gentoo-dev to the first point. |
59 |
The second point has to be handled on the expert list (or both lists), so |
60 |
proxy maintainers can reply. The third point can only be handled on the expert |
61 |
list, but core developers have to read it, otherwise the whole point would be |
62 |
meaningless. |
63 |
|
64 |
In other projects with similar problems but the technical possibility to moderate |
65 |
some "code of conduct" was adopted, so moderators can ban users on that base |
66 |
for a fixed amount of time. |
67 |
|
68 |
Gerion |
69 |
|
70 |
|
71 |
> |
72 |
> > |
73 |
> > Cheers, |
74 |
> > |
75 |
> > Dirkjan |
76 |
> |
77 |
> |