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. |
7 |
|
8 |
> We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be |
9 |
> the time. |
10 |
|
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. ] |
14 |
|
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. |
17 |
|
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. |
23 |
|
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. |
31 |
|
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. |
36 |
|
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. |
44 |
|
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. |
48 |
|
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? |
58 |
|
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. |
64 |
|
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 |
71 |
ARE PUSHING AWAY POTENTIAL STAFF. But I digress.. |
72 |
|
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. |
77 |
|
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. |
83 |
|
84 |
[1] http://gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=1&chap=3 |
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: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/ |