Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Chris Scullard <scullard@××××××××.edu>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:58:20
Message-Id: 4697CA3D.8020604@uchicago.edu
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes by Jim Ramsay
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>