2011.09.05. 20:35 keltezéssel, davidills...@gmail.com írta:
On 5 Sep 2011, at 19:00, Reizinger Zoltán wrote:
<snip>
==Approval of Forum roles==
My understanding is that forums have essentially three roles:
a) Users
b) Moderators, who delete, edit and move all posts, ban users, etc.
c) Admins who can also create new forums and assign moderator rights
Volunteers not listed, who contribute in posts with their special knowledge.
5) Users require no special treatment. They are like subscribers to a
users list.
6) Being listed as an "admin" or "moderator" on a public-facing Apache
website suggests endorsement by the project, and aside from any
enhanced Forum capabilities enhances your ability to keep order on the
Forums. In other words, it is the star that makes the sheriff, not
the gun. But this endorsement, to be meaningful, should be made
authentic. So Admins and Moderators should be approved by the PPMC.
This kind of routine approval is given all the time for those who want
to be list moderators. I see no reason why we cannot, initially at
least, simply receive a list of current volunteers to ooo-private and
approve them all.
-1
Simple users became volunteers when he/she gives many useful comments to users
not worth anything on this list.
You and all commiters on this list will approve Hungarian moderators without
knowing how they works?
You will learn Hungarian and all twelve forum languages? Some moderators, and
most volunteers even not reading English.
How the PPMC will endorse them?
7) Future grants of admin/moderator rights would require a proposal to
ooo-dev seeking lazy consensus. Such a proposal could originate from
a forum volunteer or could originate from anyone on ooo-dev. This is
no different than someone asking to be a moderator for a mailing list.
-1
Same as above, language barrier.
My experience elsewhere at Apache is that PMCs are pretty open and trusting. If
there's a recommendation for further involve a valued contributor requiring
lazy concensus, I'd expect them to all go through, unless there's someone
proposed who's known to be problematic. The important thing is really
procedural... the fact that the PMC approves someone makes it clear that the
PMC has responsibility for keeping the forums healthy.
8) Any project committer, on request, will be made a forum admin or
moderator.
+1
But needs to work as a moderator and admin on forum, if they require such role.
While that's certainly desirable, if PMC members need this kind of access to
provide oversight, then they need to be able to get access regardless. This
seems less likely to be required if there's separate archival as suggested
below.
This is how it works with every other project resource --
mailing lists, source code, website, etc. Committers have rights to
pretty much everything on the project. We trust our committers. We
don't segregate the project into exclusive zones of ownership.
-1
It is a misunderstanding of closed forums.
Perhaps you could elaborate on this?
The "exclusive zone of ownership" is too ambiguous to me in this case,
may be my English is not good enough to understand it.
The closed forums (not seen by ordinary users) used for discussing all
forums common things about of management, updates etc., other for
storing spam posts for limited time, but if committer has
admin/moderator access could see the content.
==Transparency==
9) We need all private forum discussions to be echoed to a log or
mailing list where PPMC and Apache Members can view them.
If you join as mod. or admin you can see it.
If the forums are running on ASF infrastructure delegated to the PMC, the PMC
and ASF membership need a mechanism to provide oversight. This is commonly done
via mailing lists, and so repeating that pattern would simplify this task for
many.
One way of
doing this is to echo posts to ooo-private. Another way is to
periodically commit logs to the PPMC's private directory. There may
be other ways as well.
-1
The private list will be "spammed" unnecessarily, by forums posts.
Yeah, i'd suggest a separate archival list
10) The use of private forums must be used for only discussions of
specific moderation cases. It must not be used for discussion of
routine board operations.
+1
