1 |
Mike Doty wrote: |
2 |
>All- |
3 |
> |
4 |
>We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only |
5 |
>devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in |
6 |
>bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the |
7 |
>gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. |
8 |
> there is no requirement to be on this new list. |
9 |
> |
10 |
>This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway) |
11 |
>but that's a path to cross later. |
12 |
> |
13 |
>We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be |
14 |
>the time. |
15 |
> |
16 |
>--taco |
17 |
|
18 |
As a user rather than a dev I waited to respond to this until I saw |
19 |
some of the discussion, since I'm new to Gentoo culture. Most opinion |
20 |
seems to have been extremely negative, along the lines of "This will |
21 |
kill Gentoo because it will alienate the users", together with some |
22 |
very defensive responses from supporters, and a few who don't seem to |
23 |
care at all. I was also originally quite negative about it, but |
24 |
rereading the statement I have come to see some merits in the general |
25 |
idea. Developers (who are required to read the list and for whose |
26 |
continued collaboration and productivity it exists) should have the |
27 |
ability to banish non-developers who abuse their subscriptions to make |
28 |
technical discussions personal. This is only reasonable. However, |
29 |
moderating this list will just place an obstacle in the path of casual |
30 |
user participation and foster a sense of entitlement among the more |
31 |
resentful developers (those would be the ones making claims that |
32 |
Gentoo is not about what devs can do for the users, but merely about |
33 |
everyone serving their own interests). |
34 |
|
35 |
So a better solution would be to adopt the proposal for a |
36 |
developer-moderated blacklist. However, if such powers are expected |
37 |
to be exercised routinely, simply issuing it carte blanche would be |
38 |
ignoring a much larger issue having to do with the quality of the |
39 |
developer community (not to be confused with the larger developer-user |
40 |
community) itself. A good example of a list which follows this sort |
41 |
of policy, and which I also read (skim), is the linux-kernel mailing |
42 |
list, which I consider to be perhaps the optimal open-source |
43 |
developer's list. It has high volume, which people here (and there) |
44 |
sometimes dislike, but that's because they track contributions on the |
45 |
list rather than through Bugzilla, so ignore that aspect. The point |
46 |
is that each and every conversation is on-topic, competent, technical, |
47 |
and very patiently conducted. Even when one developer makes strong |
48 |
(sometimes very strong) remarks it is, as far as I have observed, |
49 |
never met in kind. They bury their egos for the sake of the project, |
50 |
because they are all good at what they do, respected for it, and get |
51 |
enough gratification from their work that they don't need to seek |
52 |
cheap thrills through mailing-list flamewars (indeed, that would |
53 |
detract from their job satisfaction). Stupid, inflammatory, and |
54 |
provocative letters are rarely answered and never develop into |
55 |
flamewars, because no one dignifies them with responses. On very rare |
56 |
occasions I have seen a frivolous conversation (one about some penguin |
57 |
game comes to mind), which reached a surprising saturation before one |
58 |
of the lead developers threatened excommunication to the participants. |
59 |
This is the ONLY time I have ever seen the blacklist powers |
60 |
explicitly exercised, and it completely ended the idiocy. Power |
61 |
exercised with extreme caution will hit twice as hard when it finally |
62 |
comes, because they'll know you mean it. |
63 |
|
64 |
I mention this because it is a pretty high standard, but is in my |
65 |
opinion just about the least you can really expect of a mailing list |
66 |
for a volunteer software development project. If this list |
67 |
degenerates into regular flamewars, it is not the fault of the users; |
68 |
there will always be idiots, but hopefully these people are too |
69 |
self-centered to think of contributing to something like Gentoo. |
70 |
Flamewars are the fault of the developers who participate in them, |
71 |
though no one will like to hear me say this. It's a developer's list |
72 |
and the flamewars wouldn't go anywhere if only a small cabal of lusers |
73 |
stoked them. And from what I've said above, having observed it in the |
74 |
LKML, if developers are doing this it's because they don't respect |
75 |
their work enough, in which case, why do they continue developing? |
76 |
But I've noticed three at least quitting since this discussion |
77 |
started, so maybe they don't. So before you go and moderate the list |
78 |
in any form, think about why at least a few of your number are so |
79 |
immature. Maybe I'm wrong, and they do like their work, but at the |
80 |
very least you should start by making a serious attempt to reform the |
81 |
mailing list culture by pure social pressure before actually |
82 |
implementing a moderation scheme. After all, it's true that users are |
83 |
granted access to this list as a privilege: the privilege of putting |
84 |
in their two cents and thereby contributing to a project that takes |
85 |
itself as seriously as the users apparently take it. The only reason |
86 |
it's desirable to the developers is that it helps them do their job. |
87 |
So impeding the users should (and will) be the last thing this list |
88 |
ever does. |
89 |
|
90 |
-- |
91 |
Ryan Reich |
92 |
ryan.reich@×××××.com |
93 |
-- |
94 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |