1 |
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:29:47AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
2 |
> Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Tue Jun 05 2007, 05:00:28PM CDT] |
3 |
> > As a member of the Council, I find it personally offensive that the |
4 |
> > Proctors have taken this action on what wasn't even a "problem" thread. |
5 |
> > I'm sick of this. I call for the immediate disbanding of the Proctors. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > As much as I dislike many of the posts from geoman/ciaranm, they really |
8 |
> > had not done anything worthy of being banned. I ask that this ban is |
9 |
> > undone *immediately* and that the Proctors have their powers revoked. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> *Sigh* I, too, was quite surprised to see people banned for what |
12 |
> appeared to be reasonable behavior (in this case). That said, I wish |
13 |
> you'd started w/ a more temperate response, instead of going all nuclear |
14 |
> on the proctors. It's likely to create some hard feelings, and that |
15 |
> just makes things harder to fix. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> So, how about using this incident as an opportunity for a calm |
18 |
> discussion about the mandate and role of the proctors? The proctors |
19 |
> clearly felt that they should shut down this thread _before_ things |
20 |
> got out of hand. Perhaps the goal was laudable, but the methods were |
21 |
> not? (As an aside, I didn't realize that Roy's e-mail was supposed to |
22 |
> be a proctor directive.) Or are people really looking for the proctors |
23 |
> to get involved only when behavior is particularly egregious? Is there |
24 |
> a way to fix the current system, or should it be chucked entirely, as |
25 |
> has been suggested? |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Well reasoned thoughts and opinions welcome. |
28 |
|
29 |
I was originally planning to send this yesterday, but wanted to delay |
30 |
it a bit because the list had just calmed down again. |
31 |
|
32 |
I'm a recent addition to the proctors team, probably pulled in mainly |
33 |
because I'm a #gentoo op, and have also been involved with conflict |
34 |
resolution things for the userrel project. This was the first time I |
35 |
was around as a proctor during an event involving proctors. A |
36 |
disclaimer: I was a bit tired when I originally wrote this and have |
37 |
not fully proofread this, so expect the grammar to be a bit bizarre in |
38 |
places. I probably missed some relevant bits too, but this is more |
39 |
than long enough already. |
40 |
|
41 |
An attempt at a "timeline" of what happened with that thread: |
42 |
|
43 |
An initial mail from Benjamin Judas is sent to the gentoo-dev list |
44 |
(which is mainly a *technical* list), with a sent date of 20:09 UTC, |
45 |
arriving in my inbox at 20:15 UTC. It contains pretty much no |
46 |
technical content, and some things ("small scottish griper brain", |
47 |
"I'm waiting for the stinky comments from the usual corners." that |
48 |
seem likely to lead to flames. |
49 |
|
50 |
The second mail is from Stephen P. Becker, dated 20:18 UTC (less than |
51 |
10 minutes after the first), arriving in my inbox at 20:25 UTC. It |
52 |
contains no technical content, but does contain "Clean the sand out of |
53 |
your pee-hole...", which might be a joke but seems likely to fuel the |
54 |
flames even if it was meant as one. |
55 |
|
56 |
More mails follow, with pretty much no technical points in them. I'll |
57 |
skip them, since they did not really affect the decisions that were |
58 |
made. |
59 |
|
60 |
Around this time a proctors member (NeddySeagoon) sends another mail |
61 |
to the list asking people to stop replying. He was alerted to the |
62 |
thread via irc at around 20:33 UTC (after which he still had to |
63 |
actually read the start of the thread). His mail has a sent header of |
64 |
20:44, arriving in my inbox at 20:55. |
65 |
|
66 |
This gets two replies that both make it rather obvious they disagree |
67 |
with this suggestion and definitely do not intend to stop posting to |
68 |
the thread (one sent 20:52 (*before* Neddy's mail makes it to my |
69 |
inbox) arriving in my inbox at 21:00, and one sent 21:00 arriving at |
70 |
21:10). At this point the decision is made to *temporarily* disable ml |
71 |
access for those two people in an attempt to let the thread die out |
72 |
(mail from amne, 21:13 sent, 21:20 in my inbox). |
73 |
|
74 |
Please take a look at the timestamps above. We spend some time reading |
75 |
the mail sent to the list, discussing what to do, and typing in |
76 |
replies. Add in the roughly ten minute lag between sending mail to the |
77 |
list and it reaching most of the subscribers and we're continually |
78 |
about 15 minutes "behind" no matter how quickly we try to react. And |
79 |
we do try to react quickly, because it seems likely more flames are |
80 |
being sent and making their way through the list software while we |
81 |
decide what to do. Amne actually responded to the second reply to |
82 |
NeddySeagoon's mail before I had the time to receive and read the |
83 |
thing. |
84 |
|
85 |
In hindsight it is obvious this attempt to stop the thread failed. A |
86 |
flood of replies resulted, most of them taking apart the wording of |
87 |
NeddySeagoon's original request to stop replying. |
88 |
|
89 |
And some more flaming later we get the following from a council member |
90 |
to the -dev list: |
91 |
|
92 |
From Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>: |
93 |
> I really have to agree with you. The proctors have completely lost |
94 |
> their way. They are ineffective. They tend to compound the problems |
95 |
> they were created to stop. |
96 |
|
97 |
Yes, they obviously did not manage to stop this particular thread. I |
98 |
am not sure how they *could* have though. Had proctors done nothing, |
99 |
would this thread have been much more peaceful? |
100 |
|
101 |
> They are slow. |
102 |
|
103 |
*Slow*? If anything the decisions were made too quickly. There were at |
104 |
most minutes between receiving the inflammatory mails and responding |
105 |
to them, and we needed *some* time to discuss things. |
106 |
|
107 |
> They have not prevented anything, which was the reason for their |
108 |
> creation. Rather, what they *have* done is stifle conversation |
109 |
|
110 |
This is a *technical* list, or at least that's what it is supposed to |
111 |
be. Do you really think this thread belonged on -dev? |
112 |
|
113 |
My "background" is more on irc than on the ml. From an irc point of |
114 |
view, the proctors are the people with +o who attempt to keep the |
115 |
channel (list) mostly on-topic and somewhat polite. A couple of people |
116 |
tried to start up a discussion that had nothing to do with the |
117 |
technical discussions the list is meant for, attacking each other, |
118 |
etc. Proctors reacted by (in irc terms) temporarily muting the people |
119 |
in an attempt to move the discussion off the list. |
120 |
|
121 |
As far as I can tell this is what the proctors team was meant to do: |
122 |
keep the list usable for technical discussions. I'm not going to dig |
123 |
up my council meeting logs right now, but if I remember at all |
124 |
correctly the plan was for the council and infra to back proctors when |
125 |
they made impopular decisions needed to keep the -dev ml on track. |
126 |
Instead, what we get is a council member demanding the immediate |
127 |
reversal of two temporary blocks of people making inflammatory posts, |
128 |
and that proctors be disbanded. If this happens every time the |
129 |
proctors actually try to enforce a decision then yes, they will be |
130 |
ineffective. |
131 |
|
132 |
People really need to make up their mind about what the -dev ml *is*. |
133 |
If the proctors are not supposed to keep the discussions there mostly |
134 |
focused on technical matters and keep people from attacking each other |
135 |
(I quote again: "Clean the sand out of your pee-hole..."? does that |
136 |
really belong on a technical list like this?) then that should be made |
137 |
a lot more obvious than it currently is. Currently proctors believe |
138 |
they should keep the list on technical matters, using (temporary) |
139 |
access blocking if they consider it necessary, while most other people |
140 |
seem to think any kind of access blocking is out of the question. We |
141 |
cannot have it both ways. The council should remove the access *they* |
142 |
gave proctors to block mailing list access if they do not want us to |
143 |
*use* that access. |
144 |
|
145 |
-- |
146 |
Marien. |