Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: kuzetsa <kuzetsa@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 12:17:05
Message-Id: f4ad3809-b3ac-bbd0-f8b4-2b80e9364929@gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists by Rich Freeman
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.

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature