Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-02-11
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:47:01
Message-Id: CAGDaZ_pNhfH1g84quhare2WA5xJ-OXoZkUm3pDk=Eq_MDgHvYQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-02-11 by Michael Palimaka
1 I second the motion.
2
3 That said however I would personally not be against having individuals
4 personally banned or blacklisted or restricted or whatnot at the
5 discretion of the proper authorities should they engage in misconduct.
6
7 Such as proctors for example.
8
9 I also would be ok with people being sanctioned on a separate basis if
10 they should evade such a restriction.
11
12 Blatant spammers are an obvious example of being worthy of restriction.
13
14 All of the above said, however...I would not be against requiring
15 messages posted to the list (or any list for that example) to be
16 required to pass anti-spam measures, such as SPF or DKIM.
17
18 In that note, I would also like to suggest that SPF/DKIM be used as a
19 filter for messages being posted to the lists if they aren't already.
20
21 On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:02 AM, Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote:
22 > On 01/30/2018 04:32 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
23 >>
24 >> 2. Continuation on mailing list posting restrictions
25 >> ====================================================
26 >>
27 >> We haven't enforced the gentoo-dev posting restrictions so far. I have
28 >> been approached by a user yesterday who wrongly thought he couldn't post
29 >> to the list. I think this situation is at least confusing.
30 >>
31 >> I believe we should either withdraw the earlier decision and explicitly
32 >> announce that posting to gentoo-dev will not be restricted to avoid
33 >> further confusion, or enforce it (how?).
34 >>
35 >> That said, I think the list has improved for now, so maybe we don't need
36 >> to do that after all. Especially given the upcoming possibility of
37 >> Proctors revival and/or moderation via mailman.
38 >>
39 >
40 > I'd just like to voice my support for withdrawing the earlier decision
41 > and keeping the mailing list open to all. Open communication channels
42 > are critical for maintaining an open community.
43 >