Am Sonntag, 3. Dezember 2017, 22:43:19 CET schrieb Michał Górny: > W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 21∶30 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan > Ochtman napisał: > > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be > > better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who > > move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold > > the specific posts if necessary? > > I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj > has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did, > moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low- > traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well. > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the > > audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from > > existing mailing lists? > > The audience is expect users who usually don't need basic support > but instead want to discuss the development of Gentoo and want to have > some impact on where it goes. > > The main goal is to be able to restore more developers to gentoo-dev@, > and be able to focus it on feedback and reviews. > > In other words, the goal is that if the attitude on gentoo-expert > becomes impossible to bear, the developers can unsubscribe from that > list without actually losing the ability to give feedback on important > Gentoo issues. If core Gentoo developers don't read the expert list, I'm not seeing a high value in such a list.
I'm a long term Gentoo user, but have read this list a few month only, so correct me, if I'm wrong. I've seen the main usage of this list in three aspects: 1. Review and discussion of new (technical) features (eclasses, EAPI, package manager specs). 2. Information about unmaintained packages. 3. Input and proposals from users. Splitting the list would reduce the meaning of gentoo-dev to the first point. The second point has to be handled on the expert list (or both lists), so proxy maintainers can reply. The third point can only be handled on the expert list, but core developers have to read it, otherwise the whole point would be meaningless. In other projects with similar problems but the technical possibility to moderate some "code of conduct" was adopted, so moderators can ban users on that base for a fixed amount of time. Gerion > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dirkjan > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
