Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Christina Fullam <musikc@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:07:22
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)"
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?
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.
19 However, all that aside, here is another way this change could be
20 implemented:
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.
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.
42 Thoughts?
44 --
45 Kind regards,
46 Christina Fullam
47 Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author
48 --
49 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes "Dawid Węgliński" <cla@g.o>
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>