I had always assumed that sage-flame was a fictional entity! Please don't post a link here, I do not want to be tempted to read it....
John On 19 November 2014 16:30, 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. > > > > 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.
