Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: Gentoo Dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Cc: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 18:52:34
Message-Id: CAAr7Pr-nDrFK+6WzMTreyBhAv5uJXtagxhNMemtmu0mJrqz=Ew@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists by "Michał Górny"
1 On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
2
3 > Hello, everyone.
4 >
5 > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
6 > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
7 > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
8 > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
9 >
10 >
11 > Problems
12 > ========
13 >
14 > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
15 > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
16 > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
17 > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
18 >
19 > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
20 > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
21 > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
22 > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
23 >
24 > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
25 > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
26 > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
27 > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
28 > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
29 >
30 > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
31 > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
32 > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
33 > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
34 >
35 >
36 > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
37 > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
38 > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
39 > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
40 > activity.
41 >
42 > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
43 > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
44 > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
45
46
47 >
48 > Proposal
49 > ========
50 >
51 > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
52 > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
53 >
54 > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
55 > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
56 >
57 > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
58 >
59 > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
60 > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
61
62
63 > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
64 > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
65 >
66 > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
67 >
68 >
69 > Rationale
70 > =========
71 >
72 > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
73 > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
74 > options to no avail.
75 >
76 > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
77 > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
78 > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
79 > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
80 >
81 > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
82 > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
83 >
84 > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
85 > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
86 >
87 > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
88 > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
89 >
90
91 A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposing.
92 The only difference is
93 that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post.
94 But lets say hyptothetically
95 Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev
96 list. If ComRel will not take any action
97 (due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?
98
99 This isn't to say I advocate against trying, but it might just end up the
100 same as today.
101
102
103 >
104 > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
105 > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
106 > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
107 > really solve the problem because:
108 >
109 > I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
110 > nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
111 > to themselves.
112 >
113 > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
114 > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
115 > be lured into discussing with them.
116 >
117 > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
118 > silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
119 > the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
120 > as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
121 >
122
123 So now we only silently consent to misbehavior on mailing lists besides
124 'gentoo-dev'?
125
126 -A
127
128
129 >
130 >
131 > Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of
132 > the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we
133 > can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software
134 > and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to
135 > change that.
136 >
137 > Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good
138 > moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without
139 > causing huge delays, moderation has a number of own problems:
140 >
141 > α) the delays will make discussions more cumbersome, and render posting
142 > confusing to users,
143 >
144 > β) they will implicitly cause some overlap of replies (e.g. when N
145 > different people answer the same question because they don't see earlier
146 > replies until they're past moderation),
147 >
148 > γ) the problem will be solved only partially -- what if a reply contains
149 > both valuable info and personal attack?
150 >
151 >
152 > Seeing that no other effort so far has succeeded in solving the problem,
153 > splitting the mailing lists seems the best solution so far. Most
154 > notably:
155 >
156 > а. Developer mailing lists are restored to their original purpose.
157 >
158 > б. It is 'fair'. Unlike with disciplinary actions, there is no judgment
159 > problem, just a clear split between 'developers' and 'non-developers'.
160 >
161 > в. 'Expert users' are still provided with a mailing list where they can
162 > discuss Gentoo without being pushed down into 'user support' channels.
163 >
164 > г. Active contributors (in particular recruits) can still obtain posting
165 > access to the mailing lists, much like they do obtain it to #gentoo-dev
166 > right now. However, if they start misbehaving we can just remove that
167 > without the risk of evasion.
168 >
169 > --
170 > Best regards,
171 > Michał Górny
172 >
173 >
174 >

Replies