On Nov 19, 2014 8:30 AM, "mmarco" <mma...@unizar.es> wrote: > > I really like the idea of moving threads to sage-flame when they start to go out of hand. What was the criterion to do so until now? > > Also, from an ownership point of view, the right to move discussions between google groups belongs to google, and google's rules state that they would do so when the person that opened the group decides (correct me if i am wrong). That would mean that it is William's decission (again, correct me if i am wrong). > > I have no complain with the criterion followed until now to move flames to sage-flame. >
There was a recent discussion that I strongly felt should be on sage-flame at the time (as I felt attacked). I posted regularly in the thread "I think this thread should be moved to sage-flame" but people ignored my pleas or disagreed with me (perhaps rightly so, in retrospect). Based on that experience, I do think moving threads to sage-flame should involve a (quick) but formalized process. By moving them I do not me anything technical. I just mean opening a new thread there with the same subject. William > > > El martes, 18 de noviembre de 2014 20:06:35 UTC+1, William escribió: >> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Vincent Delecroix >> <20100.d...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 2014-11-18 11:36 UTC-07:00, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com>: >> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Anne Schilling < an...@math.ucdavis.edu> >> >> wrote: >> >>> On 11/18/14 7:55 AM, Harald Schilly wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:26:18 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> What if instead of a "code of conduct" there was a "community >> >>>> expectations" SHORT document that just say what we expect? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I'm a little bit late to this thread, but I've read all the mails. This >> >>>> "expectations" document sounds interesting to me, whereas I'm a bit >> >>>> hesitant to this "code of conduct" thing. In my eyes, it is >> >>>> stating a lot of obvious things, and doesn't solve immediate problems. I >> >>>> agree that it could be abused in some way, just because it exists and >> >>>> hence it is a leverage point. e.g. phrases like "poor >> >>>> behavior" are a bit hollow for me. (*) >> >>> >> >>> Saying that discussions that get out of hand can be relegated to >> >>> sage-flame is, I think, important. >> >>> For example, I did not know that we could do that until very recently. >> >>> Stating explicitly how this can >> >>> be done might be good. >> >>> >> >>>> We should not forget, that most of us here (as mathematicians & >> >>>> researchers in general) are trained to be (a) very picky and (b) >> >>>> long-term persistent. Those ingredients do not help if a discussion >> >>>> derails into lengthy substitution-arguments to just make a point in a >> >>>> time-consuming thread. What would actually help in such situations is to >> >>>> step back and look at the bigger picture. Maybe there >> >>>> should be an intervention team of "senior" community people to sort this >> >>>> out: e.g. just posting "DRAMA MODE" as a signal for everyone to stop it? >> >>>> But who are those and how do they gain authority? >> >>> >> >>> One problem with this is that the intervention team might not be reading >> >>> all threads. >> >>> So having a way to say where there is a problem might still be useful. >> >>> I agree deciding who the intervention team is is an important question. >> >>> Probably William >> >>> would be a good choice. >> >> >> >> Here is I think a concrete, apolitical proposal. >> >> >> >> Given the potentially political nature of such a choice, one >> >> possibility is to do something apolitical, and select based on >> >> ownership. In particular, based on lines of code contributed to Sage, >> >> which is an (imperfect!) but non-politicial measure of how much >> >> ownership people have in Sage (with legal value, since people do not >> >> contribute their copyright). By this definition: >> >> >> >> >> >> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/graphs/contributors?from=2006-02-05&to=2014-11-18&type=a >> >> >> >> the top 12 all time list of contributors to Sage, in order, are: >> >> >> >> - William Stein >> >> [SNIP] >> >> >> >> We could: >> >> >> >> 1. Create a private mailing list called sage-abuse with these people >> >> as members. >> >> >> >> 2. Make a clear statement on the sagemath.org website, etc., that if >> >> people think a thread should be on sage-flame, send a message to the >> >> sage-abuse list. >> >> >> >> 3. The sage-abuse list members will have a quick discussion and if >> >> what to do isn't clear, they will vote (which means a quick on-list >> >> vote that must be completed within one day). If a majority votes to >> >> move the discussion should move to sage-flame, they ensure it moves. >> >> >> >> For now, the sage-abuse group would have exactly one duty, which is to >> >> ensure that discussions get moved to sage-flame when requested. >> >> That's it. We would give this a try for 6 months, and only then >> >> revisit whether the group should expand its duties or be dissolved. >> > >> > Having a committee in charge of the repression looks more than >> > suspicious to me. Why would you exclude people from those important >> > decision ? Why do not make the discussion public ? >> > Isn't sage-devel >> > good enough for that ? >> >> Maybe sage-devel would be good enough. We could use our existing >> process, which is that you start a new thread with a title like >> >> VOTE: to move thread <link to thread> to sage-flame >> >> [ ] Yes >> [ ] No >> >> Anybody on sage-devel can vote (or argue) for 24 hours, we count the >> votes, and if there is a simple majority for moving the thread to >> sage-flame, it moves. That's it. >> >> > Moreover, it would be nice to point precisely >> > the thread/tickets where problems occurred. >> > On the other hand, for what William called a "non-political choice" of >> > the committee, if you look at the period 2012-2014 which reflects more >> > who is *involved* in Sage, the top list is not at all the same. I hope >> > that you agree that Sage "belongs" to who use it and not to who create >> > it. >> >> <ianal> >> Legally the copyright of Sage belongs to those who created Sage, since >> we've never done copyright assignments to a foundation (or something >> similar). The GPLv3 copyright grants a specific list of rights to >> those who use and redistribute Sage. >> </ianal> >> >> -- >> William Stein >> Professor of Mathematics >> University of Washington >> http://wstein.org > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
