| 1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Guess I'll be the killjoy, and throw in the -1 on it. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Reasons are pretty straightforward (at least to me): |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I originally agreed with you, but after giving it some thought I think |
| 8 |
it might help. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> 1) Creating such channels is just attempting to shift the problem out |
| 11 |
> of sight. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
This is true, if you consider the problem to be that |
| 14 |
a) we are required to be subscribed to -dev |
| 15 |
b) we don't want to spend our time sorting the signal from the noise |
| 16 |
(where noise is defined as politics or non-technical debates or rhetoric) |
| 17 |
c) such noise kills developer interest and motivation and generally |
| 18 |
makes us frowny-faced. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Shifting it out of sight is kinda the point. We've already tried |
| 21 |
(extensively) to make people get along together and it's obviously not |
| 22 |
working. We need to acknowledge that and try another approach. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> 2) Shifting said problem into a concentrated arena means the incidence |
| 25 |
> of idiot conflicts/trolling/needling/whatever is likely to increase |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I don't think so. Every rule of conduct that currently applies to -dev |
| 28 |
should also apply to -project. It's not OTW, just the non-technical |
| 29 |
half (5/6ths? ;)) of -dev. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> 3) said increase means proctors/devrel have more work (meaning more |
| 32 |
> random outbursts at the proctors/devrel when folks realize that they |
| 33 |
> *are* going to enforce the behaviour rules, and that the outburstes |
| 34 |
> can be punished too). |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
It should probably be made clear beforehand then that these rules are |
| 37 |
still in effect. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> 4) look through -dev history; the issue isn't OT discussion, it's |
| 40 |
> people needling/harassing/trolling/(chose your verb) kicking off yet |
| 41 |
> another "mine is bigger" last word battle on the ml. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
By making -dev 'technical discussions only', the vast majority of that |
| 44 |
needling/harassing/trolling becomes OT. Now, of course, you can still |
| 45 |
have a firefight in a technical debate, but history shows it to be far |
| 46 |
less common than in a political discussion. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> Basically, what does this solve? If the intention is to create an OTW |
| 49 |
> equivalent for the forums, sure, go nuts, but I strongly doubt it'll |
| 50 |
> improve things on -dev. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
This is nothing like OTW. Posts still need to be on-topic and we still |
| 53 |
need to pretend we actually like each other. ;) |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Of course, neither of us has a crystal ball (at least I know I don't), |
| 56 |
so either one of us could be wrong. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
PS. this thread is a good example of something that would belong on |
| 59 |
gentoo-project. ;) |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed |
| 64 |
gentoo org it could suck an ancient virus from the sea |
| 65 |
9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives