Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Alec Warner]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:

> W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶52 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner
> napisał:
> > On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but
> it
> > > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > >
> > >
> > > Problems
> > > ========
> > >
> > > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > >
> > > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> > > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> > > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> > > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> > >
> > > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> > > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> > > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> > > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst,
> sometimes
> > > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> > >
> > > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> > > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> > > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> > > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> > >
> > >
> > > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible
> to
> > > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> > > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> > > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> > > activity.
> > >
> > > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> > > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> > > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Proposal
> > > ========
> > >
> > > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> > > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > >
> > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > >
> > > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > >
> > > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> >
> >
> > > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > >
> > > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has
> now.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rationale
> > > =========
> > >
> > > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> > > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all
> other
> > > options to no avail.
> > >
> > > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> > > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> > > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> > > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> > >
> > > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> > > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> > >
> > > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> > > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> > >
> > > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> > > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> > >
> >
> > A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposing.
> > The only difference is
> > that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post.
> > But lets say hyptothetically
> > Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev
> > list. If ComRel will not take any action
> > (due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?
>
> Well, I believe the main difference is that the approval process makes
> it harder to evade a ban.
>
> If you need a voice, you need to get a developer to vouch for you.
> If you have just been banned, you won't immediately regain the access
> for the same identity. And unless you've actively maintaining a second
> identity for yourself, you won't get immediate access to evade the ban.
>

Oh it was not clear we would ban people from the proposed 'gentoo-dev' list
based on your proposal.
Is someone (Comrel?) willing to do that?


>
> Yes, it only solves the problem temporarily. However, 'temporarily' is
> sometimes enough to avoid the immediate 'shitstorm' (I'm sorry for
> lacking a better word for it) that results in some people not being able
> to accept their ban.


I tend to agree with the above; but that being said:

This still feels like a half-measure? Until the community is willing to
part with some of the contributors who "add value" but who act
inappropriately...I'm not sure the half-measures are sufficient. At some
point we must say "we value a community that is safe more than individual
contributors". We certainly see some measure of the negatively in terms of
recruitment volume (people not joining due to the process, or due to the
hostile development environment) as well as the developers who contribute
less or leave entirely.

Are the contributions of these "inappropriate" contributors really so
necessary for the operation of Gentoo? Perhaps if we improved the community
(by enforcing the standards we already have) we might increase our
developer ranks by tapping into the people who have been turned off by the
past behavior of the community.

-A




> As for point B, I believe that there is also a serious difference when
> the user is pointed to another channel where he can express his opinion
> freely.


> > This isn't to say I advocate against trying, but it might just end up the
> > same as today.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> > > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> > > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this
> doesn't
> > > really solve the problem because:
> > >
> > > I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> > > nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> > > to themselves.
> > >
> > > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber
> will
> > > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> > > be lured into discussing with them.
> > >
> > > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> > > silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly,
> because
> > > the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> > > as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
> > >
> >
> > So now we only silently consent to misbehavior on mailing lists besides
> > 'gentoo-dev'?
>
> Yes, that's pretty much the idea. I have failed to convince people who
> could solve the problem to do so. So I'm falling back to cleaning up my
> own backyard to at least solve one part of the problem that particularly
> bothers me.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>
>
>