Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Mailing list moderation and community openness
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 07:15:39
Message-Id: slrnpbp4k7.165.martin@lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Mailing list moderation and community openness by Rich Freeman
1 Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > Certainly. Closing lists won't stop the private abuse, nor is it intended to.
4 >
5 > What it would stop is this particular thread talking endlessly about it.
6 >
7 >> Closing a mailing list
8 >> will not close such a debate; it will then just happen elsewhere.
9 >
10 > And that is the goal.
11
12 So now we finally get to the point:
13 The whole story has actually *nothing* to with Fred.
14
15 It is about what I said in the very first posting:
16 It is an attempt to suppress opinions, by taking away people an
17 important channel to raise their voice.
18
19 The whole Fred example was only a rhetorical trick: An attempt to find
20 at least *one* example where you believe that the developers' opinion is
21 undoubtfully the right one, an attempt to justify the ivory tower.
22
23 This one example - it plays no role whether it is justified or whether
24 there is another one - is completely suppressing the fact that in
25 almost all cases on dev-ml (trivial "ACK" things aside)
26 *are* clearly discussable (concerning technical topics)
27 and *should* be discussed.
28 In fact, all these *other* discussions are the actual purpose of dev-ml.
29
30 Closing the channel simply excludes non-developers from these
31 discussions dev-ml is made for.
32
33 Concering Gentoo's reputation, you can be sure that this step will be
34 only contraproductive:
35
36 - In Fred's case anyway, because people with the opinion that something
37 strange is going on with this case will see their opinion just confirmed;
38 outsiders anyway.
39
40 - For people not involved or not interested in Fred's case it is
41 clearly even worse. From the outsider viewpoint as well.
42
43 This closing harms Gentoo a lot:
44
45 I am driven away from Gentoo by such an undemocratic step.
46 Certainly I am not the only one: Others also already formulated
47 similar opinions on this and the project mailing list, at least
48 if you are able to read between the lines.
49
50 > Could you take this debate to the appropriate place then?
51
52 Do not worry, this is presumably my last post on the topic
53 (soon I would not be able to post, anyway).
54
55 I am aware that the undemocratic decision has already been made
56 (BTW unsurprisingly in a not very democratic way),
57 so it makes no sense to discuss about it further.
58
59 My post was just a final attempt at least to mitigate the damage done
60 by this decision by speaking for the only thing which can still be
61 done purely technically: Blacklisting instead of whitelisting.
62
63 With whitelisting you will only attract that type of non-developers
64 who are willing to beg a gang to be a member of them.
65 Of course, if a secondary aim should be to get only uncritical followers
66 (or pretenders) and to drive away everybody else, whitelisting
67 is the correct choice.