From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B023139083 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:02:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 87522E0FF4; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:02:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF8E0E0F48; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:02:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6DC2533BEAC; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:02:25 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1512406941.2112.4.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org, Gentoo Development Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 18:02:21 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1512256684.30000.48.camel@gentoo.org> <1512337399.22374.30.camel@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.5 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: f948bc57-653c-450c-ba6b-e01af3c28519 X-Archives-Hash: 311f45a93f760d8ce473da3481d167ee W dniu pon, 04.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶18 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan Ochtman napisał: > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Maybe we should move to a more modern list manager? I'm pretty sure mailman > can do this kind of stuff trivially. It feels bad if we have to institute > suboptimal processes due to crappy tooling, if better alternatives are > readily available. > I'm all for it, as long as someone is actually going to do the necessary work within the next, say, 4 weeks. I'd really like to avoid once again having no resolution whatsoever just to wait for never-to-come upgrade. I should point out that this includes: 1. Switch to another mailing list software without breaking stuff. This needs someone from Infra really willing and being able to do it. 2. Establishing a clear policy on how moderation should be performed. Without a clear policy, the effects could be far worse than status quo. 3. Establishing a good and trusted moderators team. Normally I'd say ComRel could do that but given their inability to react within the last year... So, anyone volunteering to do the work? -- Best regards, Michał Górny