1 |
Hello, |
2 |
|
3 |
In every mailing list conversation, there are at least three people: |
4 |
the two conversing, and the future reader. I point this out as I think |
5 |
it important that everyone realize that not all posts are written for |
6 |
those immediately participating in the conversation. |
7 |
|
8 |
Some time ago I was offered some equipment due to my history of |
9 |
open-source contributions to a variety of projects. I asked the donor |
10 |
to forward it (or money) to the Gentoo foundation, but they declined, |
11 |
citing a general distaste for the management of software projects in |
12 |
general and specific issues they believed existed within Gentoo. |
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
16 |
> Hello, everyone. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it |
19 |
> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's |
20 |
> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists |
21 |
> and solve some of the problems they are facing today. |
22 |
> |
23 |
|
24 |
If you have in fact discussed this off list with people who agree, I |
25 |
think it is important that you invite them to comment. Not only will |
26 |
it show support for what you have detailed, it will allow them to |
27 |
explain the problems they have in greater detail, so that perhaps a |
28 |
solution that does not involve restricting list access could be found. |
29 |
|
30 |
It may be that I am misunderstanding your language, but what you have |
31 |
presented does not leave many things open for discussion. It seems |
32 |
like what you have presented is to be either accepted or rejected as |
33 |
is. Seeing as my opinion does not matter, it further seems like it |
34 |
will simply be accepted as is. |
35 |
|
36 |
> |
37 |
> Problems |
38 |
> ======== |
39 |
> |
40 |
> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo- |
41 |
> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally |
42 |
> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some |
43 |
> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three: |
44 |
> |
45 |
> 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including |
46 |
> pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may |
47 |
> be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same |
48 |
> person are seriously demotivating to everyone. |
49 |
> |
50 |
|
51 |
No one has any right to not be offended. If Gentoo developers are |
52 |
receiving criticism for their behavior, then perhaps it would be best |
53 |
that they critically analyze their actions and the effect that they |
54 |
have on other people. |
55 |
|
56 |
As far as I am aware most developers never get harassed and go quietly |
57 |
on about their business. I have even asked some questions similar to |
58 |
the questions I have asked on this list that people have felt were |
59 |
adversarial. However, these developers didn't seem to mind my |
60 |
questions and spent 5 minutes or so of their time on a response. |
61 |
|
62 |
> 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand. |
63 |
> I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is |
64 |
> really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails |
65 |
> in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes |
66 |
> you don't even get a single on-topic reply. |
67 |
> |
68 |
|
69 |
Does the list have a digest subscription option? I find that extremely |
70 |
helpful for one list I am subscribed to (Perl6 development) which is |
71 |
very high volume. On the other hand, lots of offtopic chatter would |
72 |
still be hard to sort through, but I think it needs to be considered |
73 |
whether the chatter the list currently receives is truly off topic. |
74 |
What if it is simply concerns or subjects that the OP did not want to |
75 |
consider? Does that make it off topic? Is the problem more involved |
76 |
than previously thought? |
77 |
|
78 |
> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing |
79 |
> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask |
80 |
> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug |
81 |
> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one. |
82 |
> |
83 |
|
84 |
In the case of actual support requests, it might be worth taking some |
85 |
kind of action against the user, but the general level of competence |
86 |
of Gentoo users makes me wary that this may be a mischaracterization |
87 |
of the intent of the email. If something like a "support request" |
88 |
percolates to gentoo-dev, it may be of a similar vein as a complaint |
89 |
about a bug resolution. Complaining about bug resolutions seems valid, |
90 |
especially if questions on the tracker have been ignored. |
91 |
|
92 |
Some developers in particular seem to not appreciate being held |
93 |
accountable for their actions. In most notable cases, all anyone ever |
94 |
does is ask for an explanation as to why something occurred - and in |
95 |
most notable cases, that question is ignored, with no recourse left to |
96 |
the user or contributor. |
97 |
|
98 |
Personally, I tried to ask why eix's "optimizations" flag was removed, |
99 |
when other packages *do the exact same thing.* Still no response. How |
100 |
am I supposed to interpret this? |
101 |
|
102 |
> |
103 |
> All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to |
104 |
> use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get |
105 |
> demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers |
106 |
> either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their |
107 |
> activity. |
108 |
> |
109 |
> For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply, |
110 |
> and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind |
111 |
> of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list! |
112 |
> |
113 |
|
114 |
It may be that this is separate from the content of the mailing list. |
115 |
Do some of the developers simply not like the format of a mailing |
116 |
list? A lot of projects are now using Slack and Discourse in addition |
117 |
to IRC. I personally do not like either of those services, but some |
118 |
people think they allow reduce response times, aid in comprehension, |
119 |
allowing greater involvement of developers. |
120 |
|
121 |
As it is, it seems to me like a lot of development happens on IRC and off list. |
122 |
|
123 |
> |
124 |
> Proposal |
125 |
> ======== |
126 |
> |
127 |
> Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to |
128 |
> establish the following changes to the mailing lists: |
129 |
> |
130 |
> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be |
131 |
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers. |
132 |
> |
133 |
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open. |
134 |
> |
135 |
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access |
136 |
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer. |
137 |
> |
138 |
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide |
139 |
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers. |
140 |
> |
141 |
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now. |
142 |
> |
143 |
> |
144 |
> Rationale |
145 |
> ========= |
146 |
> |
147 |
> I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I |
148 |
> would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other |
149 |
> options to no avail. |
150 |
> |
151 |
|
152 |
There is an option that has not been discussed, and that is |
153 |
questioning why the gentoo-dev list receives offtopic replies, |
154 |
personal attacks, and trolling. |
155 |
|
156 |
> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list |
157 |
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure |
158 |
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve |
159 |
> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were: |
160 |
> |
161 |
> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions |
162 |
> create more noise than leaving the issue as is. |
163 |
> |
164 |
> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure |
165 |
> hate speech that carries no value to anyone]. |
166 |
> |
167 |
> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people |
168 |
> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months]. |
169 |
> |
170 |
|
171 |
People only ever do things that make sense. Again, I invite the people |
172 |
who are being attacked to consider why someone cares enough to bother |
173 |
to do that. Bored teenagers go to #archlinux to have pissing contests, |
174 |
not #gentoo. |
175 |
|
176 |
> |
177 |
> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore |
178 |
> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right |
179 |
> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't |
180 |
> really solve the problem because: |
181 |
> |
182 |
|
183 |
To me this sounds like ComRel realized it is too easy to turn good |
184 |
intentions into fascism. |
185 |
|
186 |
> I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if |
187 |
> nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying |
188 |
> to themselves. |
189 |
> |
190 |
> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will |
191 |
> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly |
192 |
> be lured into discussing with them. |
193 |
> |
194 |
> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it |
195 |
> silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because |
196 |
> the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen |
197 |
> as a sign of shameful silent admittance. |
198 |
> |
199 |
|
200 |
It is also entirely possible that a new user will see the troll, agree |
201 |
with the troll, and not want to contribute to Gentoo because they |
202 |
think the troll is right. |
203 |
|
204 |
> |
205 |
> Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of |
206 |
> the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we |
207 |
> can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software |
208 |
> and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to |
209 |
> change that. |
210 |
> |
211 |
> Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good |
212 |
> moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without |
213 |
> causing huge delays, moderation has a number of own problems: |
214 |
> |
215 |
> α) the delays will make discussions more cumbersome, and render posting |
216 |
> confusing to users, |
217 |
> |
218 |
> β) they will implicitly cause some overlap of replies (e.g. when N |
219 |
> different people answer the same question because they don't see earlier |
220 |
> replies until they're past moderation), |
221 |
> |
222 |
> γ) the problem will be solved only partially -- what if a reply contains |
223 |
> both valuable info and personal attack? |
224 |
> |
225 |
|
226 |
I agree with this logic, but please be careful - it states a problem, |
227 |
presupposes a single solution, and then concludes that there is only |
228 |
one course of action based on the critique applied to that one |
229 |
solution. This is partly why I see the proposal as something which |
230 |
does not seem to be accommodating to alternate viewpoints. It makes |
231 |
addressing this section with an alternate viewpoint difficult, and if |
232 |
I ignore it then it looks like I ignored part of your argument. |
233 |
|
234 |
> |
235 |
> Seeing that no other effort so far has succeeded in solving the problem, |
236 |
> splitting the mailing lists seems the best solution so far. Most |
237 |
> notably: |
238 |
> |
239 |
> а. Developer mailing lists are restored to their original purpose. |
240 |
> |
241 |
> б. It is 'fair'. Unlike with disciplinary actions, there is no judgment |
242 |
> problem, just a clear split between 'developers' and 'non-developers'. |
243 |
> |
244 |
> в. 'Expert users' are still provided with a mailing list where they can |
245 |
> discuss Gentoo without being pushed down into 'user support' channels. |
246 |
> |
247 |
> г. Active contributors (in particular recruits) can still obtain posting |
248 |
> access to the mailing lists, much like they do obtain it to #gentoo-dev |
249 |
> right now. However, if they start misbehaving we can just remove that |
250 |
> without the risk of evasion. |
251 |
> |
252 |
|
253 |
I feel this is still a fairly large barrier to involvement. Getting |
254 |
people to the point they want to contribute or have the knowledge to |
255 |
contribute is the hard part, and what this will make harder to do. |
256 |
|
257 |
|
258 |
Respectfully, |
259 |
R0b0t1 |