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 081321382C5 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 02:21:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 630DAE0830; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 02:21:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from avasout05.plus.net (avasout05.plus.net [84.93.230.250]) (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 E4790E07D8 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 02:21:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.6.147] ([212.159.46.162]) by smtp with ESMTP id 10iCfOHq91fhE10iDf0PMx; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 03:21:17 +0100 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=J9KEEjvS c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=RuViaDnnNG9rfPLW4VJocg==:117 a=RuViaDnnNG9rfPLW4VJocg==:17 a=13zjGPudsaEWiJwPRgMA:9 a=7mOBRU54AAAA:8 a=OeSkKpJIaZAqy4owrocA:9 a=7Zwj6sZBwVKJAoWSPKxL6X1jA+E=:19 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=gsGc-ZJsUNr22ZKxeEwA:9 a=ONNS8QRKHyMA:10 a=wa9RWnbW_A1YIeRBVszw:22 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Mailing list moderation and community openness To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <4aab96fa-0edb-6a28-791e-28e2103f2a30@gentoo.org> <0818a5b0-cc1e-403f-6c08-1285999de30f@gentoo.org> <20180320160316.GA5785@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <87605qs3pi.fsf@gentoo.org> From: "M. J. Everitt" Openpgp: id=BA266E0525CFAB101523351B4C30334F93C22371 Message-ID: <8267424f-835c-e363-bcd5-c58811fda061@iee.org> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 03:21:10 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 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 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="H4DOSS1N9p0EQA28U4FGgLuQYCCGNBfWs" X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfIrGKrR2oc9gUdyq07lQM7pEmPFwD7nxVXv8Aay+sbwoFwah6KHLlAMVz5yklk21KH+soms2yvFvOG1kW7uTOS9/2M64GiSQ8RTNZjluG282rYb/rDAt FG4AeLkjx6LZV+iAbtg2h5CMUh4DLGlQuvC4nTYSVeVTdxAyic5DXUsIum6ZSv3rdg8ovnfAqALJNQ== X-Archives-Salt: 0aa1b3c1-21c6-469d-bc16-d1c4c476227d X-Archives-Hash: baca850da97ed3adbb49c49215f02441 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --H4DOSS1N9p0EQA28U4FGgLuQYCCGNBfWs Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="khaIQF7MNZKTQv8h3Tz7yvtW6QuCsIOsM"; protected-headers="v1" From: "M. J. Everitt" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <8267424f-835c-e363-bcd5-c58811fda061@iee.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Mailing list moderation and community openness References: <4aab96fa-0edb-6a28-791e-28e2103f2a30@gentoo.org> <0818a5b0-cc1e-403f-6c08-1285999de30f@gentoo.org> <20180320160316.GA5785@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <87605qs3pi.fsf@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: --khaIQF7MNZKTQv8h3Tz7yvtW6QuCsIOsM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-GB On 27/03/18 17:39, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:= >> Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote= : >>>> It is about openness vs. isolation. >>> I'm pretty sure most developers, myself included, want to welcome >>> contributions. >> Closing of the mailing list does not sound like that. >> > Sure, but it is actually part of the motivation. > > Consider this scenario. > > Fred is a community member. Fred consistently harasses and trolls new > contributors in private. New contributors end up leaving because of > Fred. > > Fred gets booted out as a result. No mention is made of why Fred as > booted out, because everything happened in private. > > Now a bunch of community members get upset about Fred being booted out > without reason. Fred claims it is because he disagrees with the > leadership on something. People start arguing endlessly about > openness. > > Ultimately the leaders just want Fred gone so that new contributors > aren't getting driven away. They can't explain that because then they > create potential civil liability for the project. The problem is that > the debate goes on for over a year despite intervening elections and > now this becomes the issue that is driving new contributors away. > > What solution would you propose for this problem? It isn't > hypothetical at all - I can think of one case in Gentoo's past where > this happened that I'm aware of, and I'd be shocked if it were the > only one. > >> And anyway, you can be sure that the problem will appear again, >> no matter how closed the list will be. > Sure, but we can at least force the negative advertising of Gentoo to > go elsewhere, rather than basically paying to run a negative PR > campaign against ourselves. > >>> A lot of this comes down to considering that most people in these >>> debates probably are well-intended. >> Taking away freedom is never justified by good intention. > You might want to choose a BSD-based distro then. :) > > And what about the freedom to endlessly troll and harass you and > others? Is this truly a freedom we want to stand for? How about the > freedom to harass members of legally-protected classes (something that > also has happened historically in the community)? > > Surely Gentoo's mission isn't to run completely unrestricated forums > for discussion of anything and everything. Our main purpose here is > to maintain a Linux distro, not provide a platform for anybody who has > an opinion on anything. Free expression has to be balanced against > the interests of people who want to actually contribute to the distro > without being endlessly trolled and harassed. > It sounds a lot to me like you're replacing one set of problems with another .. solving not a lot. Whether you take action on "Fred" or not, you're going to lose out, so what do you do... Where is the greater damage, with one/two people, 10/20 people or 100/200 people .. its a huge value judgement - certainly not one I'd like to make! You may or may not have heard the expression "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" .. alas I feel this measure is a good example of this. To try to rid the mailing list of one or two bad apples, you've cut the whole tree down so it can't bear fruit. I think this is a foolish step, but only time will tell that for sure ... The next "logical" step would simply be to delete the whole mailing list - I suppose that's the next "measure" when the trolling from white-listed members resurfaces.... And don't go telling me it doesn't exist .. set a bad example, others will surely follow ... Ooops, another $2 spent on a lost cause .. >,< --khaIQF7MNZKTQv8h3Tz7yvtW6QuCsIOsM-- --H4DOSS1N9p0EQA28U4FGgLuQYCCGNBfWs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJauvwbAAoJEGPnxnn01DHdnmsP/RzV80loJLrobn/gspbhqu0+ z17LIZlz63F6Wel13HsYh5lT0jz0SuDzbJmfj/OIi3toXnOq97edD8/YzW7dt5B9 R1FV7Sna/62GrUZFsXsCx3EW0wkWKajPinMC52OxeyVItghveLvu7Fq8iAEgH0lg YWxREf4fDNDKSBdK0Cw5mWBhN2hG9GZCc60Hy6ue9cZTDjakqbo3hP73ZFtgEVDC hkdEwSoAF88sP8XPek3BAk+vky5ivEKkkHEkCFLf/eJkiCdCXg9nj5s8zUZpA9iU EM2M3IP3xXXreRvJdFXgBNJo6uX1lfkvrMGVHzIi46+Jtl7d9iu23LVt4vShV7EV sO/6mkbQh+6R2Rl7xyLSPpTIwCduzrmTo7TJzWC39yN4In4hniWTykbaEAEdaR73 7c3cVzkHfMBG2Bhw29gSnSnaXqcCsrQaey3CPjESQ87ainHzsO87UAb1Qv8E5bx2 M7UTdnkwybHas7TiCvhdGZ8lVZ6IHTc54KYirkAbm8lenrrtqipcDrnnYExxv0YO NJeZ3yt7LAYj4GVBdbuYFCVcBdwcahOIzPr+lPbY9SdAL9ZaabpUMe89Y9ka9rrw JXJkrOUyzuNl/gvCE0D1vxgTMAMqc7CxghXbqXfCtH7lz6P7ElJQL/KVWOjLu1qV BQvWPcyFjRD3pnovF6MC =kLjO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --H4DOSS1N9p0EQA28U4FGgLuQYCCGNBfWs--