| 1 |
Christina Fullam wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I suppose the problem is high-volume and excessive flaming/trolling/OT. |
| 4 |
> The proposed solution asks that every developer take an active role, |
| 5 |
> yes, so that could easily equal more work - but I have little doubts |
| 6 |
> that there are developers that will take an interest in doing it. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
It's odd though, that several have remarked how the list has been improving |
| 9 |
recently, and the most off-topic distraction imo has been this entire |
| 10 |
thread, based on meetings which were not exactly carried out in a |
| 11 |
transparent manner. Instead, the list was simply told that this what "We" |
| 12 |
were going to do. It doesn't strike me as a good way to establish consensus |
| 13 |
nor as inspiring leadership. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> However, all that aside, here is another way this change could be |
| 16 |
> implemented: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
I am still unsure as to the need for the change. It hasn't been fully |
| 19 |
established that this change is the correct solution afaics. The long |
| 20 |
discussion that led to the establishment of the proctors came up with a |
| 21 |
markedly different consensus of the way forward. Now this is imposed (a |
| 22 |
week to comment before the motion is voted on.) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> -core stays private. I really dont see the need to change IMO. |
| 25 |
Agreed. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> -project (call it what you will) would be for the off topic, non |
| 28 |
> development emails that we so commonly see. this list would be optional |
| 29 |
> for all developers. |
| 30 |
> -dev (no preference for the name) would be for development discussion |
| 31 |
> for devs and non-devs alike. |
| 32 |
I can see that working if you implement some of the proposed technical |
| 33 |
fixes, eg so that an Off-Topic discussion can be directed to project. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> everyone would all start out on a |
| 36 |
> whitelist. any developer could opt to move a dev or non-dev to the |
| 37 |
> moderated list (meaning their emails would be delayed allowing for |
| 38 |
> moderation or simple release after a given time period). |
| 39 |
The trouble I have with this is that a distinction is drawn between the two |
| 40 |
groups, and one group (with a history of disdain to the other, as well as |
| 41 |
of flaming) is given more power. Sounds like a social experiment waiting to |
| 42 |
happen. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> The check and balance for this would be that if any developer was found |
| 45 |
> to be moderating someone unnecessarily, that developer themself would be |
| 46 |
> moved to the moderated list by devrel for a time period without any |
| 47 |
> access rights to change anything further themselves. Repeat offenders |
| 48 |
> would be reviewed by devrel for further action if needed. this list |
| 49 |
> would be required for all developers. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
So the only course of appeal is to a subset of the minority group. I note |
| 52 |
that the appeal mechanism hasn't even been discussed, so I am unsure as to |
| 53 |
just how transparent it will be. Further if it's only devs who have any |
| 54 |
input, I don't have any confidence in it actually achieving the aims, ie a |
| 55 |
mailing list which is a good place for *all* to discuss development. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
As someone else pointed out, any of A, B, or C could squash a post agreeing |
| 58 |
with X, Y or Z, no doubt feeling justified. I don't believe that overworked |
| 59 |
devs are going to be that sympathetic to appeals, and it seems like a |
| 60 |
bureaucratic nightmare. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
To say that people don't identify with their peers is disingenous, and given |
| 63 |
that they do, moderation by only one side seems to lack credibility. At |
| 64 |
least with the proctors, you were drawing from the existing Gentoo |
| 65 |
moderators, across all channels, so had some assurance of experience and |
| 66 |
competence, as well as the confidence of users. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
> I dont think for a moment that it is only non-devs causing this |
| 69 |
> excessive amount of email which often results in flaming/trolling. I do |
| 70 |
> agree that everyone should be bound by the same rules. |
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
> Thoughts? |
| 73 |
> |
| 74 |
Only that if you want us all to be bound by the same rules, giving yet more |
| 75 |
power to _individual_ devs is not the way to do it. |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
Here's an idea: ask the people who've got the experience to do the job. They |
| 78 |
may not always be sympathetic, but they are at least always professional. |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
Also, since it has emerged from this discussion that there is no internal |
| 81 |
development list, maybe it would be good to set one up? I dunno, it may |
| 82 |
well be that drobbins et al intentionally made it so that all development |
| 83 |
discussion had to be done in conjunction with users, and not just to get |
| 84 |
their input. After all, a developer who cannot deal with non-devs still has |
| 85 |
some growth to achieve, imo, and Gentoo once had the aim of producing devs |
| 86 |
who were a credit to the team. |
| 87 |
|
| 88 |
|
| 89 |
-- |
| 90 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives