1 |
On 11/30/20 22:15, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: |
2 |
>> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to |
3 |
>> repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously |
4 |
>> suggested one (since the last meeting). |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I would like to propose the council consider shutting down the "Off the Wall" |
7 |
> (OTW) forum on forums.gentoo.org permanently and without replacement. |
8 |
> |
9 |
To start with, your motion is badly stated, "without replacement" could |
10 |
be construed as forbidding the creation of any subforums in the future, |
11 |
especially considering how established process has been egregiously |
12 |
abused by the council in regard to this issue so far. Beyond that, |
13 |
"without replacement" without qualification could be construed as |
14 |
covering any discussion which has taken place in Off the Wall, including |
15 |
solicitation and coordination of donations to Gentoo and various |
16 |
discussions which are either tangentially or indeed directly related to |
17 |
Gentoo. Further, given the existence of multiple (given multiple |
18 |
languages) Gentoo related chat sub-forums, such a decision could be |
19 |
construed as forbidding them as well. Though we have apparently already |
20 |
established that clarity and consistency are distinctly aside from the |
21 |
goals of at least some council members. |
22 |
|
23 |
> Rationale: |
24 |
> |
25 |
> * provides zero value to the distribution |
26 |
Which has been shown to be false. |
27 |
|
28 |
> * large parts of the content are toxic and not something I (and others) wish |
29 |
> Gentoo to be associated with |
30 |
Which is, at very best, debatable. To call prose "toxic" is to imply |
31 |
that it is, by its very nature, corrupting and destructive to those |
32 |
exposed to it, which attributes to those words literally magical powers. |
33 |
It has been my experience that those claiming that mere words are some |
34 |
manner of unstoppable corrupting influence either lack a counterargument |
35 |
to such "toxic" words; or they outright concede the "toxic" prose to be |
36 |
unassailably correct, yet still counter to their preferences. |
37 |
|
38 |
> * it caters to a set of users somewhat distinct from the rest of the forums |
39 |
> (e.g., >5000 posts in OTW, <100 elsewhere) |
40 |
Even stipulating that your figures were accurate, by this logic any |
41 |
software in the tree or project serving a niche userbase would need to |
42 |
be removed and any overlays serving such software or provided by such |
43 |
teams would need to be removed from Gentoo controlled infrastructure. |
44 |
Given that you have not made such an argument, your arguments lack |
45 |
logical consistency. |
46 |
|
47 |
> * forum moderators have made clear they are not going to fulfill their roles |
48 |
> (e.g., regarding the code of conduct) in OTW, following a similar discussion |
49 |
> one year ago |
50 |
Which is, to put none too fine a point on it, false. It also holds forum |
51 |
moderators to a distinctly different standard than any other body in |
52 |
Gentoo. As it is implicitly insisting that forum moderators be fully |
53 |
proactive in their actions, even in areas which are expressly subject to |
54 |
much lesser moderation. While other bodies are left go so far as to |
55 |
expressly state that they intend to avoid doing anything, even when |
56 |
action would be called for under the rules by which they nominally |
57 |
operate, as they wish to avoid the potential for negative feedback, and |
58 |
yet they are allowed to remain unchanged. Again, your statements are |
59 |
based on major logical inconsistencies. |
60 |
|
61 |
> |
62 |
> This leaves us with two options: |
63 |
> |
64 |
> 1) shut down OTW |
65 |
> or |
66 |
> 2) replace or supplement forum moderators with people willing to fulfill the |
67 |
> moderator role in OTW |
68 |
> |
69 |
Curiously, you have in no way show that the existing moderators are not |
70 |
"people willing to fulfill the moderator role in OTW", yet you take it |
71 |
as a given. Moderation is, by and large, driven by users reporting |
72 |
problems, whether it be spam, a post that breaks layout, or posts which |
73 |
are counter to forum rules in some other way, even including spurious |
74 |
reports (everything from jokes to false claims that confirmed facts were |
75 |
confabulated misinformation), there have historically been extremely few |
76 |
reports of posts in Off the Wall. Which is especially notable |
77 |
considering that at least several council members have forum accounts |
78 |
and *all* council members have e-mail by which they could properly |
79 |
contact moderators about whatever they consider to be problematic. |
80 |
Further, valid reports regarding posts in Off the Wall are handled in |
81 |
essentially the same timeframe as any other. That a section is given |
82 |
more free rein than other sections does not mean that it is given carte |
83 |
blanche. In short, your inferences are wrong. |
84 |
|
85 |
Not to mention that there are indeed other options for the council to |
86 |
take, which have better logical support than those you propose. |
87 |
|
88 |
Option 3: |
89 |
Given the precedent set by multiple council members, yourself included, |
90 |
in the discussion of this very topic on the core mailing list, the code |
91 |
of conduct does not apply to any medium which is not visible to the |
92 |
public at large. Thus, given the council decision to restrict public |
93 |
visibility of Off the Wall, there are definitionally no code of conduct |
94 |
concerns there. If you want to maintain logical self consistency, |
95 |
multiple council members, along with other developers, would need to |
96 |
receive sanctions analogous to whatever would be otherwise done to Off |
97 |
the Wall. |
98 |
|
99 |
Then again, given how strictly council members have been adhering to the |
100 |
code of conduct in this public discussion, one could make the argument |
101 |
that the code of conduct is itself null and void. Which would again |
102 |
imply that there would be no call for the council to take the action you |
103 |
propose. Though it would further imply that there is no reason for Off |
104 |
the Wall to be subject to restricted access. |
105 |
|
106 |
Option 4: |
107 |
Given that this latest farce was instigated by a member of the council |
108 |
making an appeal to the council while bypassing normal channels of |
109 |
complaint, thereby asserting primary enforcement responsibility for the |
110 |
complaint before any action could be taken by those who would otherwise |
111 |
have been responsible for handling it. Further given that such authority |
112 |
was at no point deferred back to forum moderators, despite the rather |
113 |
obviously increased delay induced by making such enforcement a council |
114 |
matter. Further still, given that the council, having claimed primary |
115 |
enforcement responsibility, proceeded to take no direct action on the |
116 |
subject of the complaint, instead opting to separately decide to simply |
117 |
hide the entire sub-forum. It seems perfectly sensible for the council, |
118 |
which is a technical conflict resolution panel, to resolve to not |
119 |
manufacture social conflicts itself. |
120 |
|
121 |
Note that option 4 is not mutually exclusive with any other option. |
122 |
|
123 |
> I dont see 2) happen (for the simple reasons |
124 |
> * that it will be difficult to find someone to do the work |
125 |
> * and that noone has volunteered to do it over the past year |
126 |
> ), so 1) it is. |
127 |
> |
128 |
Having undertaken the laborious process of not looking, I can understand |
129 |
how you came to the conclusion that they would be hard to find. |
130 |
|
131 |
> Cheers, Andreas |
132 |
> |
133 |
|
134 |
In short, all of your arguments are either extremely weak or outright |
135 |
false and your proposed solution is unfounded. |