1 |
On 03/26/2018 09:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:19 PM, kuzetsa <kuzetsa@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 03/20/2018 08:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>> Actually, I think it is more of a technical constraint. It is |
7 |
>>> basically impossible to blacklist somebody on a mailing list, since |
8 |
>>> all they need to do is roll up a new email address. |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> I can think of various arguments for whitelisting or not whitelisting, |
11 |
>>> but it seems silly to blacklist. |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> require active stewardship (moderation, blacklisting, etc.) |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> entry barriers to participation (default deny / require whitelist) |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> if there are limitations on free speech, someone has to bear the burden. |
19 |
>> for gentoo to have list moderation (blacklist approach) which isn't |
20 |
>> dysfunctional, the main barrier to resources will be the human resources |
21 |
>> end of things, not technical constraints. The tools themselves are easy |
22 |
>> enough to use, but people who are willing and able to use them, and with |
23 |
>> a clear guideline for how it needs done is a comrel issue which the |
24 |
>> foundation needs to sort out. |
25 |
>> |
26 |
> |
27 |
> List moderation isn't the same as blacklisting. With moderation |
28 |
> you're effectively whitelisting because the first post anybody makes |
29 |
> would be held for moderation, and depending on the approach you could |
30 |
> moderate everything. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> If you allowed new subscribers to post without being held for |
33 |
> moderation, then the issues I spoke of would still apply, no matter |
34 |
> how much manpower you threw at it. |
35 |
> |
36 |
|
37 |
I think this may be a misunderstanding? no? there might be some mailing |
38 |
list jargon term: "moderation" which I was unaware of: |
39 |
|
40 |
I was more referring to how IRC chatrooms have an op, forums have |
41 |
moderators which DO NOT screen individual posts, etc. I think I know of |
42 |
the other version, and it might be analogous to the mechanism you meant? |
43 |
|
44 |
for example: websites which hold back all comments which are posted |
45 |
anonymously (non-trusted users) until a moderator can approve it. |
46 |
|
47 |
I've never used mailing list software which has that feature (I think |
48 |
that may be what you're referring to) - I mostly meant someone (or a |
49 |
team) with the specific duty to hold people accountable for their posts |
50 |
(since the list is public-facing, this should include @gentoo.org devs |
51 |
too because it sets a weird precedent to have disparate enforcement) |
52 |
|
53 |
specifically - I was referring to persons (staff) who are moderators. |
54 |
|
55 |
(active stewardship to check for problems which need addressed) |
56 |
|
57 |
I think the mechanism you describes sounds like some sort of greylist / |
58 |
tiered version of default deny or something like that. Interesting. |
59 |
|
60 |
the "require whitelist / default deny" version of having a closed list |
61 |
seems the same - expecting users to contact a dev to relay messages, or |
62 |
go through the dubiously [un]documented process of getting whitelisted. |
63 |
|
64 |
unless that process has a standardized format, it seems worse than the |
65 |
greylist because individual developers have the autonomy to [not] |
66 |
sponsor people for whitelist, or approve posting on a user's behalf. the |
67 |
lack of transparency for the process is a concern, I mean. |