| 1 |
Oh, and another idea is to have somewhat more real-time debates |
| 2 |
on IRC. Procedure could be fairly simple: it would still have a jury |
| 3 |
group overseeing it. Participants would get voice in turn, present |
| 4 |
their arguments and counter-arguments. If a participant repeatedly |
| 5 |
fails to answer opponent's arguments according to formal logic rules, |
| 6 |
he is denied further turns to speak. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: |
| 10 |
> Alex Tarkovsky wrote: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> By trying to silence parties involved in a disagreement you only force their |
| 13 |
>> differences to manifest in less desirble ways. And when that happens, things |
| 14 |
>> tend to get really ugly and it inevitably reflects back on Gentoo. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Also, brushing things over to private email and private blogs is not always the |
| 17 |
>> answer because the issues behind these disagreements often involve (and just as |
| 18 |
>> importantly, affect) more than 2 people. Just because Daniel Robbins might now |
| 19 |
>> be taking things over to his private blog doesn't mean you no longer have to |
| 20 |
>> deal with the issues he attempted to have a public discussion about. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> Gentoo should provide an official venue where developers (and ex-developers and |
| 23 |
>> users) can talk out their disagreements, and under a few plainly spelled-out and |
| 24 |
>> easily enforceable guidelines designed to keep the discourse somewhat civil. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
> That's an interesting idea. It would be nice to have a discussion ML, which |
| 28 |
> would have one simple rule enforced. Any discussion _must_ follow formal |
| 29 |
> logic rules. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Ensuring that rule is followed could be done in a few different ways. |
| 32 |
> One example: |
| 33 |
> There would be a small group overseeing discussion, and, solely on the |
| 34 |
> basis of formal logic rules, would, for example, suspend a person for a day, |
| 35 |
> in case of violations. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Of course, enforcement rules could be slightly more complex. i.e. |
| 38 |
> 2-hour ban for any ad-hominem attack. Two warnings for logic errors, |
| 39 |
> day ban for third one. Or something. These are details that need to |
| 40 |
> be worked out, tested, re-hashed, etc. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> This would result in a list that would force people to discuss the actual |
| 43 |
> issue (technical, or otherwise), as opposed to do doing all sorts of mud |
| 44 |
> flinging, and, due to temporary bans, would prevent any discussion |
| 45 |
> from deteriorating into flame fest. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh |
| 52 |
Total Knowledge. CTO |
| 53 |
http://www.total-knowledge.com |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
-- |
| 56 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives