1 |
W dniu sob, 02.12.2017 o godzinie 19∶33 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1 |
2 |
napisał: |
3 |
> Hello, |
4 |
> |
5 |
> In every mailing list conversation, there are at least three people: |
6 |
> the two conversing, and the future reader. I point this out as I think |
7 |
> it important that everyone realize that not all posts are written for |
8 |
> those immediately participating in the conversation. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Some time ago I was offered some equipment due to my history of |
11 |
> open-source contributions to a variety of projects. I asked the donor |
12 |
> to forward it (or money) to the Gentoo foundation, but they declined, |
13 |
> citing a general distaste for the management of software projects in |
14 |
> general and specific issues they believed existed within Gentoo. |
15 |
|
16 |
I'm not sure if this is relevant to the topic at hand. There are many |
17 |
issues within Gentoo. I'm trying to address one of them. |
18 |
|
19 |
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
20 |
> > Hello, everyone. |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it |
23 |
> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's |
24 |
> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists |
25 |
> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today. |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> |
28 |
> If you have in fact discussed this off list with people who agree, I |
29 |
> think it is important that you invite them to comment. Not only will |
30 |
> it show support for what you have detailed, it will allow them to |
31 |
> explain the problems they have in greater detail, so that perhaps a |
32 |
> solution that does not involve restricting list access could be found. |
33 |
|
34 |
This sentence merely focuses on 'don't shoot the messenger' part which |
35 |
will happen anyway. Those people won't come here to '+1' the proposal |
36 |
because this mailing list is not supposed to be about mail popularity |
37 |
contests. |
38 |
|
39 |
Also because they don't want to be targeted by people misbehaving here. |
40 |
In fact, a number of them already pinged me today privately showing |
41 |
support, and some of them told me exactly that -- that they don't want |
42 |
to become a target of aggression. A few participants of this mailing |
43 |
list have shown harassment towards people that stood up to them -- |
44 |
including constant insults on various public and private channels. |
45 |
|
46 |
> |
47 |
> It may be that I am misunderstanding your language, but what you have |
48 |
> presented does not leave many things open for discussion. It seems |
49 |
> like what you have presented is to be either accepted or rejected as |
50 |
> is. Seeing as my opinion does not matter, it further seems like it |
51 |
> will simply be accepted as is. |
52 |
|
53 |
I simply don't believe that after so many iterations there's any more |
54 |
option that hasn't been tried or rejected already. |
55 |
|
56 |
> > |
57 |
> > Problems |
58 |
> > ======== |
59 |
> > |
60 |
> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo- |
61 |
> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally |
62 |
> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some |
63 |
> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three: |
64 |
> > |
65 |
> > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including |
66 |
> > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may |
67 |
> > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same |
68 |
> > person are seriously demotivating to everyone. |
69 |
> > |
70 |
> |
71 |
> No one has any right to not be offended. If Gentoo developers are |
72 |
> receiving criticism for their behavior, then perhaps it would be best |
73 |
> that they critically analyze their actions and the effect that they |
74 |
> have on other people. |
75 |
> |
76 |
> As far as I am aware most developers never get harassed and go quietly |
77 |
> on about their business. I have even asked some questions similar to |
78 |
> the questions I have asked on this list that people have felt were |
79 |
> adversarial. However, these developers didn't seem to mind my |
80 |
> questions and spent 5 minutes or so of their time on a response. |
81 |
> |
82 |
> > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand. |
83 |
> > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is |
84 |
> > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails |
85 |
> > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes |
86 |
> > you don't even get a single on-topic reply. |
87 |
> > |
88 |
> |
89 |
> Does the list have a digest subscription option? I find that extremely |
90 |
> helpful for one list I am subscribed to (Perl6 development) which is |
91 |
> very high volume. On the other hand, lots of offtopic chatter would |
92 |
> still be hard to sort through, but I think it needs to be considered |
93 |
> whether the chatter the list currently receives is truly off topic. |
94 |
> What if it is simply concerns or subjects that the OP did not want to |
95 |
> consider? Does that make it off topic? Is the problem more involved |
96 |
> than previously thought? |
97 |
> |
98 |
> > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing |
99 |
> > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask |
100 |
> > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug |
101 |
> > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one. |
102 |
> > |
103 |
> |
104 |
> In the case of actual support requests, it might be worth taking some |
105 |
> kind of action against the user, but the general level of competence |
106 |
> of Gentoo users makes me wary that this may be a mischaracterization |
107 |
> of the intent of the email. If something like a "support request" |
108 |
> percolates to gentoo-dev, it may be of a similar vein as a complaint |
109 |
> about a bug resolution. Complaining about bug resolutions seems valid, |
110 |
> especially if questions on the tracker have been ignored. |
111 |
> |
112 |
> Some developers in particular seem to not appreciate being held |
113 |
> accountable for their actions. In most notable cases, all anyone ever |
114 |
> does is ask for an explanation as to why something occurred - and in |
115 |
> most notable cases, that question is ignored, with no recourse left to |
116 |
> the user or contributor. |
117 |
> |
118 |
> Personally, I tried to ask why eix's "optimizations" flag was removed, |
119 |
> when other packages *do the exact same thing.* Still no response. How |
120 |
> am I supposed to interpret this? |
121 |
|
122 |
I'm sorry but the purpose of this thread is not to convince you that |
123 |
the problems exist. If you haven't experienced them already, then it |
124 |
would be polite of you to either accept them as a fact, or do some |
125 |
research yourself. |
126 |
|
127 |
I understand that you might want to know things. However, it is |
128 |
generally impolite if someone 'comes late to the party' and starts |
129 |
shouting questions that the existing participants know answers to |
130 |
already. This is distorting to the conversation at hand. |
131 |
|
132 |
In such a situation, as I said it is usually polite to try to find |
133 |
the answers yourself or politely and privately query one |
134 |
of the participants who you are acquainted to or is otherwise able |
135 |
and willing to help you. |
136 |
|
137 |
> |
138 |
> > |
139 |
> > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to |
140 |
> > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get |
141 |
> > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers |
142 |
> > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their |
143 |
> > activity. |
144 |
> > |
145 |
> > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply, |
146 |
> > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind |
147 |
> > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list! |
148 |
> > |
149 |
> |
150 |
> It may be that this is separate from the content of the mailing list. |
151 |
> Do some of the developers simply not like the format of a mailing |
152 |
> list? A lot of projects are now using Slack and Discourse in addition |
153 |
> to IRC. I personally do not like either of those services, but some |
154 |
> people think they allow reduce response times, aid in comprehension, |
155 |
> allowing greater involvement of developers. |
156 |
> |
157 |
> As it is, it seems to me like a lot of development happens on IRC and off list. |
158 |
|
159 |
Yes. Sometimes only because IRC is much faster. Sometimes because using |
160 |
mailing lists becomes impossible due to problems listed above. |
161 |
|
162 |
> > |
163 |
> > Proposal |
164 |
> > ======== |
165 |
> > |
166 |
> > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to |
167 |
> > establish the following changes to the mailing lists: |
168 |
> > |
169 |
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be |
170 |
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers. |
171 |
> > |
172 |
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open. |
173 |
> > |
174 |
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access |
175 |
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer. |
176 |
> > |
177 |
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide |
178 |
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers. |
179 |
> > |
180 |
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now. |
181 |
> > |
182 |
> > |
183 |
> > Rationale |
184 |
> > ========= |
185 |
> > |
186 |
> > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I |
187 |
> > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other |
188 |
> > options to no avail. |
189 |
> > |
190 |
> |
191 |
> There is an option that has not been discussed, and that is |
192 |
> questioning why the gentoo-dev list receives offtopic replies, |
193 |
> personal attacks, and trolling. |
194 |
|
195 |
People's private issues are not topic of this mailing list. It is |
196 |
generally impolite and unprofessional to discuss them publicly. Please |
197 |
don't do that. |
198 |
|
199 |
> > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list |
200 |
> > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure |
201 |
> > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve |
202 |
> > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were: |
203 |
> > |
204 |
> > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions |
205 |
> > create more noise than leaving the issue as is. |
206 |
> > |
207 |
> > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure |
208 |
> > hate speech that carries no value to anyone]. |
209 |
> > |
210 |
> > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people |
211 |
> > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months]. |
212 |
> > |
213 |
> |
214 |
> People only ever do things that make sense. Again, I invite the people |
215 |
> who are being attacked to consider why someone cares enough to bother |
216 |
> to do that. Bored teenagers go to #archlinux to have pissing contests, |
217 |
> not #gentoo. |
218 |
> |
219 |
> > |
220 |
> > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore |
221 |
> > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right |
222 |
> > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't |
223 |
> > really solve the problem because: |
224 |
> > |
225 |
> |
226 |
> To me this sounds like ComRel realized it is too easy to turn good |
227 |
> intentions into fascism. |
228 |
> |
229 |
> > I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if |
230 |
> > nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying |
231 |
> > to themselves. |
232 |
> > |
233 |
> > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will |
234 |
> > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly |
235 |
> > be lured into discussing with them. |
236 |
> > |
237 |
> > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it |
238 |
> > silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because |
239 |
> > the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen |
240 |
> > as a sign of shameful silent admittance. |
241 |
> > |
242 |
> |
243 |
> It is also entirely possible that a new user will see the troll, agree |
244 |
> with the troll, and not want to contribute to Gentoo because they |
245 |
> think the troll is right. |
246 |
> |
247 |
> > |
248 |
> > Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of |
249 |
> > the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we |
250 |
> > can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software |
251 |
> > and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to |
252 |
> > change that. |
253 |
> > |
254 |
> > Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good |
255 |
> > moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without |
256 |
> > causing huge delays, moderation has a number of own problems: |
257 |
> > |
258 |
> > α) the delays will make discussions more cumbersome, and render posting |
259 |
> > confusing to users, |
260 |
> > |
261 |
> > β) they will implicitly cause some overlap of replies (e.g. when N |
262 |
> > different people answer the same question because they don't see earlier |
263 |
> > replies until they're past moderation), |
264 |
> > |
265 |
> > γ) the problem will be solved only partially -- what if a reply contains |
266 |
> > both valuable info and personal attack? |
267 |
> > |
268 |
> |
269 |
> I agree with this logic, but please be careful - it states a problem, |
270 |
> presupposes a single solution, and then concludes that there is only |
271 |
> one course of action based on the critique applied to that one |
272 |
> solution. This is partly why I see the proposal as something which |
273 |
> does not seem to be accommodating to alternate viewpoints. It makes |
274 |
> addressing this section with an alternate viewpoint difficult, and if |
275 |
> I ignore it then it looks like I ignored part of your argument. |
276 |
> |
277 |
> > |
278 |
> > Seeing that no other effort so far has succeeded in solving the problem, |
279 |
> > splitting the mailing lists seems the best solution so far. Most |
280 |
> > notably: |
281 |
> > |
282 |
> > а. Developer mailing lists are restored to their original purpose. |
283 |
> > |
284 |
> > б. It is 'fair'. Unlike with disciplinary actions, there is no judgment |
285 |
> > problem, just a clear split between 'developers' and 'non-developers'. |
286 |
> > |
287 |
> > в. 'Expert users' are still provided with a mailing list where they can |
288 |
> > discuss Gentoo without being pushed down into 'user support' channels. |
289 |
> > |
290 |
> > г. Active contributors (in particular recruits) can still obtain posting |
291 |
> > access to the mailing lists, much like they do obtain it to #gentoo-dev |
292 |
> > right now. However, if they start misbehaving we can just remove that |
293 |
> > without the risk of evasion. |
294 |
> > |
295 |
> |
296 |
> I feel this is still a fairly large barrier to involvement. Getting |
297 |
> people to the point they want to contribute or have the knowledge to |
298 |
> contribute is the hard part, and what this will make harder to do. |
299 |
|
300 |
A mailing list is not strictly essential to contributing to Gentoo. |
301 |
I can't think of it being to much use of any recently recruited |
302 |
developers. |
303 |
|
304 |
-- |
305 |
Best regards, |
306 |
Michał Górny |