1 |
Another user here throwing in his two cents (Gentoo must be rich by |
2 |
now). But I think that the mailing list absolutely needs changes. Like |
3 |
it or not, after the recent negative press, including the embarassing |
4 |
Daniel Robbins incident, this list has become a much higher-profile |
5 |
public face of Gentoo. For my own part, I have used this distro for |
6 |
years and never subscribed until all this bad press, and never posted |
7 |
until now that I see a potentially positive move coming under so much |
8 |
attack. |
9 |
|
10 |
Jim Ramsay wrote: |
11 |
> To my recollection, the recent flame wars have for the most part been |
12 |
> between devs and non-devs. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> |
15 |
It's a funny old thing because I wanted to say exactly this, but to make |
16 |
the opposite point! After reading for a few months, I am shocked, not |
17 |
just at the way that some people are behaving - there will always be bad |
18 |
behaviour, but that non-devs are allowed to come here and gratuitously |
19 |
insult developers with apparent total immunity. Developers are subject |
20 |
to bans and forced "vacations" from the project, as they should be. But |
21 |
from my observation all the recent flamewars have either had non-devs at |
22 |
the center of them, or been outright started by them, and there is |
23 |
nothing anybody seems to be able to do about it. This is a ridiculous |
24 |
situation that should never be tolerated (and would not be in a |
25 |
healthier project) and it's perfectly reasonable to me that the council |
26 |
wants to address it. |
27 |
|
28 |
I think the heart of the problem is people assuming they have rights |
29 |
that they should not have. The only people who should have a RIGHT to |
30 |
post to this list are developers, and for everyone else it should be |
31 |
considered a privilege - one that can be easily revoked. There's no |
32 |
reason why a project has any obligation to create a mailing list that |
33 |
their developers are required to use in the course of their duties AND |
34 |
where they are subject to abuse from random people. |
35 |
|
36 |
For the people who are saying "if this change goes through, I'm out", I |
37 |
don't think that's helpful. It's natural for some non-dev contributors |
38 |
to feel that their contributions are being minimized by a move like |
39 |
this. But I think it has to be acknowledged that a change is necessary, |
40 |
and you should instead join the discussion about how this is actually |
41 |
going to be done. I for one think a blanket ban of non-devs from posting |
42 |
is going a bit far, especially since I'm sure devs value many of their |
43 |
comments. But that's just it - it should be up to the developers whom |
44 |
they want (and more importantly don't want) to interact with. I would |
45 |
propose a plan whereby non-devs can be removed by a vote from some set |
46 |
number of devs. Say, if 5 or 6 developers do not want a person posting |
47 |
on the list any more then that person ought to be banned. I think most |
48 |
contributors would not have to worry about this happening to them. |
49 |
That's just one suggestion, and I'm sure the council is open to hearing |
50 |
alternatives from others. |
51 |
|
52 |
Chris |
53 |
-- |
54 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |