| 1 |
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 10:24 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Alin N?stac wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> > Do you have a solution to filter flamefests out of a ml? If you do, |
| 7 |
>> > please share it with the list. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Please give one example of a mailing list plagued by flamefests that |
| 10 |
>> successfully solved their problems by adopting moderation without |
| 11 |
>> completely alienating their communities. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> With two lists we could potentially reduce a single unified bonfire into |
| 14 |
> two controlled burns :) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
You already have two lists. Your argument that core is for more private |
| 17 |
stuff, but not developer communication seems odd. My impression (never |
| 18 |
having seen a core message) is that core doesn't actually function that |
| 19 |
well, since dev v dev flames spill onto this list. If you are saying that |
| 20 |
all developer discussion is supposed to happen on dev, fine, but I really |
| 21 |
do not understand why that should mean users are not allowed to contribute |
| 22 |
as you suggested in your other post. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
As for moderation, the simple fact is that your devs have neither the time |
| 25 |
nor the experience to do such a job. The ones that have the inclination |
| 26 |
should probably be kept from it, in the same way that those who lust after |
| 27 |
power should never get it. If you want the list to function of course you |
| 28 |
need to have moderators who can suspend access or warn people to back off. |
| 29 |
When my access was suspended, I didn't like it but I accepted the team's |
| 30 |
decision-- because it was a team decision, from experienced moderators, not |
| 31 |
just the decision of some random dev. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Good luck with reinventing everything and discussing the same stuff you have |
| 34 |
for the last year that led to the formation of the Proctors. I accept that |
| 35 |
the decision to disband them has been taken, although it seems odd that no |
| 36 |
notification of the meeting which led to this latest change was given. |
| 37 |
Obviously I think this is a major strategic error, and it's sad that rather |
| 38 |
than one member admit a mistake, the present Council has to override the |
| 39 |
consensus that took so long to reach. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives