Christina Fullam wrote: > I suppose the problem is high-volume and excessive flaming/trolling/OT. > The proposed solution asks that every developer take an active role, > yes, so that could easily equal more work - but I have little doubts > that there are developers that will take an interest in doing it. > It's odd though, that several have remarked how the list has been improving recently, and the most off-topic distraction imo has been this entire thread, based on meetings which were not exactly carried out in a transparent manner. Instead, the list was simply told that this what "We" were going to do. It doesn't strike me as a good way to establish consensus nor as inspiring leadership.
> However, all that aside, here is another way this change could be > implemented: > I am still unsure as to the need for the change. It hasn't been fully established that this change is the correct solution afaics. The long discussion that led to the establishment of the proctors came up with a markedly different consensus of the way forward. Now this is imposed (a week to comment before the motion is voted on.) > -core stays private. I really dont see the need to change IMO. Agreed. > -project (call it what you will) would be for the off topic, non > development emails that we so commonly see. this list would be optional > for all developers. > -dev (no preference for the name) would be for development discussion > for devs and non-devs alike. I can see that working if you implement some of the proposed technical fixes, eg so that an Off-Topic discussion can be directed to project. > everyone would all start out on a > whitelist. any developer could opt to move a dev or non-dev to the > moderated list (meaning their emails would be delayed allowing for > moderation or simple release after a given time period). The trouble I have with this is that a distinction is drawn between the two groups, and one group (with a history of disdain to the other, as well as of flaming) is given more power. Sounds like a social experiment waiting to happen. > The check and balance for this would be that if any developer was found > to be moderating someone unnecessarily, that developer themself would be > moved to the moderated list by devrel for a time period without any > access rights to change anything further themselves. Repeat offenders > would be reviewed by devrel for further action if needed. this list > would be required for all developers. > So the only course of appeal is to a subset of the minority group. I note that the appeal mechanism hasn't even been discussed, so I am unsure as to just how transparent it will be. Further if it's only devs who have any input, I don't have any confidence in it actually achieving the aims, ie a mailing list which is a good place for *all* to discuss development. As someone else pointed out, any of A, B, or C could squash a post agreeing with X, Y or Z, no doubt feeling justified. I don't believe that overworked devs are going to be that sympathetic to appeals, and it seems like a bureaucratic nightmare. To say that people don't identify with their peers is disingenous, and given that they do, moderation by only one side seems to lack credibility. At least with the proctors, you were drawing from the existing Gentoo moderators, across all channels, so had some assurance of experience and competence, as well as the confidence of users. > I dont think for a moment that it is only non-devs causing this > excessive amount of email which often results in flaming/trolling. I do > agree that everyone should be bound by the same rules. > > Thoughts? > Only that if you want us all to be bound by the same rules, giving yet more power to _individual_ devs is not the way to do it. Here's an idea: ask the people who've got the experience to do the job. They may not always be sympathetic, but they are at least always professional. Also, since it has emerged from this discussion that there is no internal development list, maybe it would be good to set one up? I dunno, it may well be that drobbins et al intentionally made it so that all development discussion had to be done in conjunction with users, and not just to get their input. After all, a developer who cannot deal with non-devs still has some growth to achieve, imo, and Gentoo once had the aim of producing devs who were a credit to the team. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
