| 1 |
Christina Fullam wrote: |
| 2 |
> I think everyone is overlooking the part included previously: |
| 3 |
> (non-dev sends his email, time period expires and |
| 4 |
> no one booted it, so the email rolls through)" |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>Then what, exactly, is the damned point? The problem this is |
| 8 |
>>supposedly intended to solve is that -dev is too high-volume. This |
| 9 |
>>solution requires people to actually put MORE effort into reading -dev |
| 10 |
>>than they previously did. No one is going to actually do any |
| 11 |
>>monitoring, so all you've done is made posts from non-dev accounts |
| 12 |
>>time delayed. Why? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I suppose the problem is high-volume and excessive flaming/trolling/OT. |
| 15 |
The proposed solution asks that every developer take an active role, |
| 16 |
yes, so that could easily equal more work - but I have little doubts |
| 17 |
that there are developers that will take an interest in doing it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
However, all that aside, here is another way this change could be |
| 20 |
implemented: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-core stays private. I really dont see the need to change IMO. |
| 23 |
-project (call it what you will) would be for the off topic, non |
| 24 |
development emails that we so commonly see. this list would be optional |
| 25 |
for all developers. |
| 26 |
-dev (no preference for the name) would be for development discussion |
| 27 |
for devs and non-devs alike. everyone would all start out on a |
| 28 |
whitelist. any developer could opt to move a dev or non-dev to the |
| 29 |
moderated list (meaning their emails would be delayed allowing for |
| 30 |
moderation or simple release after a given time period). |
| 31 |
The check and balance for this would be that if any developer was found |
| 32 |
to be moderating someone unnecessarily, that developer themself would be |
| 33 |
moved to the moderated list by devrel for a time period without any |
| 34 |
access rights to change anything further themselves. Repeat offenders |
| 35 |
would be reviewed by devrel for further action if needed. this list |
| 36 |
would be required for all developers. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I dont think for a moment that it is only non-devs causing this |
| 39 |
excessive amount of email which often results in flaming/trolling. I do |
| 40 |
agree that everyone should be bound by the same rules. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Thoughts? |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
Kind regards, |
| 46 |
Christina Fullam |
| 47 |
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author |
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives