1 |
On 12/05/2017 06:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated. |
5 |
>> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't |
6 |
>> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the |
7 |
>> information being presented, or they disagree with it. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
> I don't have any issue with discussion of facts, or even the offering |
10 |
> of opinion, but the problem is that in these sorts of situations one |
11 |
> side presents their side of the story and nobody is free to counter |
12 |
> with the other side because of policy (and a reasonable policy at |
13 |
> that). And so the allegations just go unchallenged and are repeatedly |
14 |
> posted. What value does this add? At best it misleads people into |
15 |
> thinking that things like comrel actions are unfounded, and drives |
16 |
> away potential contributors. |
17 |
|
18 |
When a situation drives a way potential contributors, |
19 |
a closer look should happen. A split might be the wrong |
20 |
choice, but discussing the need for a remedy is good. |
21 |
|
22 |
> If these were discussions about policy in the abstract and not in the |
23 |
> specific then there wouldn't be as much difficulty (indeed, this is |
24 |
> the form our disagreement is taking right now). We can certainly have |
25 |
> a free conversation about whether somebody who sexually harasses |
26 |
> another developer ought to be booted or not. The problem comes in |
27 |
> when somebody has been the subject of a decision made based on their |
28 |
> individual behavior - there is no way to have a reasonable public |
29 |
> conversation about this. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> IMO discussions about individual comrel/etc decisions simply should |
32 |
> not be considered on-topic for our lists. |
33 |
|
34 |
Yes, but blocking of expression / communication is tricky: |
35 |
|
36 |
Within a particular organization (in this case, one focusing on |
37 |
FOSS/Libre software) demands that censorship be prevented at all |
38 |
costs VS expectation that disruption won't be tolerated, nor will |
39 |
general off-topic rudeness/disrespect, or even cruelty - some |
40 |
expression can only exist in good faith when it can be reasonably |
41 |
understood to further the overall objectives for the particular |
42 |
organization (in our case, gentoo) |
43 |
|
44 |
For a list specifically meant for development, more restrictions |
45 |
are a reasonable starting point than elsewhere. There has to |
46 |
be a line drawn somewhere, even if it's just "keep discussions |
47 |
limited to matters associated with the current thread" (germane) |
48 |
|
49 |
THIS discussion wouldn't make sense on a dev-util/cmake thread. |