Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Peter Gordon <codergeek42@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 06:44:19
Message-Id: 1184308886.9892.48.camel@tuxhugs
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] ML changes by Mike Doty
1 On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
2 > We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
3 > devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in
4 > bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
5 > gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes.
6 > there is no requirement to be on this new list.
8 > We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
9 > the time.
11 [ Long rant ahead, perhaps some of which may or may not quite as
12 accurate as intended since I've not been following Gentoo's development
13 as closely as I should have over the past few months. ]
15 Quite frankly, this (if passed) will be Gentoo's deathbed moment, and
16 this mail will be one of my last from an official Gentoo account.
18 For far too long the mailing lists, IRC channels, and other media of
19 developer communication have been ridden with belligerent,
20 inconsiderate, and often-accusatory postings. However, instead of
21 removing the few who cause most (if not all) of this damage to Gentoo,
22 we are further restricting its development.
24 I fail to see how such restriction will aide us in any way. We already
25 have the gentoo-core mailing list, and anything needing to be kept
26 internal to developer-only discussion should be sent there. Yes, stuff
27 is leaked from time to time, but Gentoo's developer handbook [1]
28 explicitly states that "gentoo-core is to be used for internal
29 discussions." Thus, those who leak information that is not to be made
30 public should be disciplined accordingly.
32 Instead, we (the entire developer community) simply continue to let
33 things of this nature occur, and persist in adding layers of bureaucracy
34 in order to pretend to ourselves that this is much less harmful to us
35 than it verily is.
37 Yes, that's what this amounts to: bureaucracy. We are simply adding more
38 process and protocol to the posting by non-developers. How can we say
39 that devs won't discard what may have otherwise been great discussions
40 of introspection or other aspects of our development? How can we ensure
41 that developers with personal vendettas [2] won't use this moderation
42 power as a form of attack against the developer in question or the
43 community as a whole? Wait, what's this: Oh I see. We discipline them.
45 What does this accomplish? It adds another point of reason for possible
46 disciplinary action at the expense of furthering development and
47 hindering discussion.
49 As a moderator of Gentoo's forums for nearly two years (and a moderator
50 on a few other forums since about three years prior to this), I know
51 from experience that such moderation should be in terms of a blacklist -
52 whereby all posts and content are accepted and those which violate the
53 rules disciplined. Having a whitelist - where only permitted content is
54 accepted and others moderated in - is far too troublesome for this.
55 Aside from the issues I noted above, who's to say which posts are "good"
56 or "bad" in the first place? Who will ensure that posts are moderated in
57 a timely and reasonable manner?
59 Gentoo's goal of being community-driven was in our reach once.. Nay, we
60 _were_ a community when I first started with Gentoo several years ago
61 now: users, developers, infrastructure hackers, designers - nearly
62 *everyone* was contributing back to the community in a way: mailing list
63 or forums support, bug reporting/triaging, ebuild submission, et al.
65 Now, where do we stand? That community has fallen so much that we need
66 another group (User Reps.) to act as an intermediary between them. More
67 and more people are interested in development of Gentoo. They _want_ to
68 help develop Gentoo or contribute to it in a significant way; yet all of
69 this is just one more item to preclude such people from their
70 contributions. Let me repeat that just to make it perfectly clear: WE
73 In effect, you (the devs) are now telling others (potential
74 contributors) what we can and cannot say on the list. While I understand
75 that nothing about Gentoo grants me a protected right to freedom of
76 speech or expression in any way, this reeks of heavy censorship to me.
78 I, for one, will personally stand against any such action on this list.
79 If it comes down to it, I will personally approve _any_ non-spam posting
80 to this list by _anyone_ for the sake of civil disobedience. I encourage
81 others to take similar action. This type of administration cannot be
82 allowed to establish itself as proper or "just" in any way.
84 [1]
85 [2] Don't disagree with this outright: I know many, including myself,
86 have a strong mutual dislike with one or more developers from this and
87 other distributions though we may refrain from admittance thereto. It's
88 part of our human psyche and is a normal aspect of anyone's emotions
89 with regards to social interactions.
90 --
91 Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
92 Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
93 GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
94 DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
95 My Blog:


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes Peter Gordon <codergeek42@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes Seemant Kulleen <seemant@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>