From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-82874-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
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 34718139083
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 01:26:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 72874E0FEC;
Mon, 4 Dec 2017 01:25:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22e.google.com (mail-ua0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22e])
(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 DDAE6E0FC7
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 01:25:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id e10so11393583uah.10
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 17:25:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=scriptkitty-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to:cc;
bh=e/Uxtkb5rwnt9Ohrimgxb4WcZqkqZbdI8sI3HajhsU0=;
b=xJWl+bkgAQeJsi+9LaJLyOARWhow3r/PF7m0wy4EcOSHgarmHY23dAplQIPm39Geti
2+U9PcTKhIRt9CFpJWB+vr3zA/a3ArnWIRq3FAfTzBT6AcT7YVS8vf2vNZm/Cx0JRhkt
SjWXMhoS60bVrDMf0fYSI1za8OedzBVXMSsms8w6tsm7LB75Wfy2ntwfjtE7OjL2Kgkp
I7DFOkPVFHh+3e0yJL6J4jw+2FJqiEuZyh+KyrgBxDNveI7HvGldCGq+2HgaPBVHPq4a
hC8lIMi4jDRlZyAQYCMaDuZwtpywI2XjX2KEBtgmQBUOsNV+AzQKBh6QFM1ZxAgzjy/9
YGjw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=e/Uxtkb5rwnt9Ohrimgxb4WcZqkqZbdI8sI3HajhsU0=;
b=EzLTuHGZq82R/9L+pk580Z5Ks/3qwXUedd6PPEyp/XLNycC/9bpzqSLKJKp3S7GtqC
+TD8G7ScWjwJLtdGlLmF7j5dOGyARpDaiE4vIk18SwByT8k1DgN2liglEi6IN43LZtcS
E2caO3IEw+HK9403XPCnRh7d+In0UYsYrXy64baPa+leKayot+KHOB0l8nHdKjISA/sI
8UL3DBjoovvwohX0KWAt8JEkw+PZqnmxOlO1SXNoNad9E/G3XSsP2gpvw8FzTLz4M30e
nQGBMoykUGQwx2Kq6BcmJxJZHqekBAhfYehtbffT61knC+KxfUbOR6qp6mNHVdBGx2CS
jgxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIfFkxwEHZ+Xs6SVdZiDIqCgO8PlzU8Lb6rZBefC43taF4nz521
Fan69jVASsaZHYXZwfAcL0tQ3/vq0rkPEa60rTnwiA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMafdc9DLlNdY0mBLy5jesWu3eEhgkVUGCwd1djTZYM0kfyMfoxEiQqGQVgHjYPkPyhtGgvOShRawqpv29yVTwg=
X-Received: by 10.159.53.239 with SMTP id u44mr10598955uad.151.1512350751743;
Sun, 03 Dec 2017 17:25:51 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com
Received: by 10.176.66.161 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 17:25:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [98.116.189.160]
In-Reply-To: <1512336377.22374.15.camel@gentoo.org>
References: <1512256684.30000.48.camel@gentoo.org> <CAAr7Pr-nDrFK+6WzMTreyBhAv5uJXtagxhNMemtmu0mJrqz=Ew@mail.gmail.com>
<1512336377.22374.15.camel@gentoo.org>
From: Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 20:25:51 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: vrrMikP-ouGQkcU9NiPHL4x7msk
Message-ID: <CAAr7Pr8c-SN4m7txBoL7YSO+v9NLNojm-AbXZeb+Top83w5-Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting
developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
Cc: Gentoo Dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11458d545574ba055f7999d8"
X-Archives-Salt: 4feb0988-f71c-4fdc-b765-b74efe8c36e6
X-Archives-Hash: 3b821053559d4f0fc34a572ba23ae2ff
--001a11458d545574ba055f7999d8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <mgorny@gentoo.org> =
wrote:
> W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 13=E2=88=B652 -0500, u=C5=BCytkownik Al=
ec Warner
> napisa=C5=82:
> > On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <mgorny@gentoo.o=
rg> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but
> it
> > > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > >
> > >
> > > Problems
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > >
> > > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generall=
y
> > > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > >
> > > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (includi=
ng
> > > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people m=
ay
> > > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> > > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> > >
> > > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> > > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it =
is
> > > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> > > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst,
> sometimes
> > > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> > >
> > > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> > > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> > > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> > > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> > >
> > >
> > > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible
> to
> > > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> > > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> > > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> > > activity.
> > >
> > > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> > > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kin=
d
> > > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Proposal
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > >
> > > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> > > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > >
> > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > >
> > > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > >
> > > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> >
> >
> > > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > >
> > > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has
> now.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rationale
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > >
> > > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, =
I
> > > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all
> other
> > > options to no avail.
> > >
> > > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> > > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failur=
e
> > > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to sol=
ve
> > > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> > >
> > > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasio=
ns
> > > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> > >
> > > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pu=
re
> > > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> > >
> > > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that peop=
le
> > > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> > >
> >
> > A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposin=
g.
> > The only difference is
> > that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post=
.
> > But lets say hyptothetically
> > Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev
> > list. If ComRel will not take any action
> > (due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?
>
> Well, I believe the main difference is that the approval process makes
> it harder to evade a ban.
>
> If you need a voice, you need to get a developer to vouch for you.
> If you have just been banned, you won't immediately regain the access
> for the same identity. And unless you've actively maintaining a second
> identity for yourself, you won't get immediate access to evade the ban.
>
Oh it was not clear we would ban people from the proposed 'gentoo-dev' list
based on your proposal.
Is someone (Comrel?) willing to do that?
>
> Yes, it only solves the problem temporarily. However, 'temporarily' is
> sometimes enough to avoid the immediate 'shitstorm' (I'm sorry for
> lacking a better word for it) that results in some people not being able
> to accept their ban.
I tend to agree with the above; but that being said:
This still feels like a half-measure? Until the community is willing to
part with some of the contributors who "add value" but who act
inappropriately...I'm not sure the half-measures are sufficient. At some
point we must say "we value a community that is safe more than individual
contributors". We certainly see some measure of the negatively in terms of
recruitment volume (people not joining due to the process, or due to the
hostile development environment) as well as the developers who contribute
less or leave entirely.
Are the contributions of these "inappropriate" contributors really so
necessary for the operation of Gentoo? Perhaps if we improved the community
(by enforcing the standards we already have) we might increase our
developer ranks by tapping into the people who have been turned off by the
past behavior of the community.
-A
> As for point B, I believe that there is also a serious difference when
> the user is pointed to another channel where he can express his opinion
> freely.
> > This isn't to say I advocate against trying, but it might just end up t=
he
> > same as today.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignor=
e
> > > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen rig=
ht
> > > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this
> doesn't
> > > really solve the problem because:
> > >
> > > I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even =
if
> > > nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replyi=
ng
> > > to themselves.
> > >
> > > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber
> will
> > > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeated=
ly
> > > be lured into discussing with them.
> > >
> > > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because i=
t
> > > silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly,
> because
> > > the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> > > as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
> > >
> >
> > So now we only silently consent to misbehavior on mailing lists besides
> > 'gentoo-dev'?
>
> Yes, that's pretty much the idea. I have failed to convince people who
> could solve the problem to do so. So I'm falling back to cleaning up my
> own backyard to at least solve one part of the problem that particularly
> bothers me.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny
>
>
>
--001a11458d545574ba055f7999d8
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On S=
un, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a=
href=3D"mailto:mgorny@gentoo.org" target=3D"_blank">mgorny@gentoo.org</a>&=
gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 =
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 =
o godzinie 13=E2=88=B652=E2=80=89-0500, u=C5=BCytkownik Alec Warner<br>
napisa=C5=82:<br>
<div><div class=3D"h5">> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=
=C3=B3rny <<a href=3D"mailto:mgorny@gentoo.org">mgorny@gentoo.org</a>>=
; wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Hello, everyone.<br>
> ><br>
> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot la=
tely but it<br>
> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here=
's<br>
> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing list=
s<br>
> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Problems<br>
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
> ><br>
> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gen=
too-<br>
> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been gene=
rally<br>
> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some<br>
> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of thr=
ee:<br>
> ><br>
> > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (inc=
luding<br>
> > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some peop=
le may<br>
> > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the sa=
me<br>
> > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.<br>
> ><br>
> > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.<b=
r>
> > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but=
it is<br>
> > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails<b=
r>
> > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst=
, sometimes<br>
> > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.<br>
> ><br>
> > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been=
abusing<br>
> > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to =
ask<br>
> > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about b=
ug<br>
> > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists imposs=
ible to<br>
> > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and ge=
t<br>
> > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of develope=
rs<br>
> > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their=
<br>
> > activity.<br>
> ><br>
> > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one r=
eply,<br>
> > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this=
kind<br>
> > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!<br>
><br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > Proposal<br>
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
> ><br>
> > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like =
to<br>
> > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:<br>
> ><br>
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will =
be<br>
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.<br>
> ><br>
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.<br>
> ><br>
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting acc=
ess<br>
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.<br>
><br>
><br>
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to p=
rovide<br>
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.<br>
> ><br>
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev h=
as now.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Rationale<br>
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
> ><br>
> > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. Howev=
er, I<br>
> > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhauste=
d all other<br>
> > options to no avail.<br>
> ><br>
> > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing li=
st<br>
> > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the fa=
ilure<br>
> > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anythin=
g to solve<br>
> > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel member=
s were:<br>
> ><br>
> > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those ev=
asions<br>
> > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.<br>
> ><br>
> > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it&=
#39;s pure<br>
> > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].<br>
> ><br>
> > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that =
people<br>
> > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you a=
re proposing.<br>
> The only difference is<br>
> that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowe=
d to post.<br>
> But lets say hyptothetically<br>
> Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-de=
v<br>
> list. If ComRel will not take any action<br>
> (due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?<br>
<br>
</div></div>Well, I believe the main difference is that the approval proces=
s makes<br>
it harder to evade a ban.<br>
<br>
If you need a voice, you need to get a developer to vouch for you.<br>
If you have just been banned, you won't immediately regain the access<b=
r>
for the same identity. And unless you've actively maintaining a second<=
br>
identity for yourself, you won't get immediate access to evade the ban.=
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Oh it was not clear we would ban peopl=
e from the proposed 'gentoo-dev' list based on your proposal.</div>=
<div>Is someone (Comrel?) willing to do that?</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Yes, it only solves the problem temporarily. However, 'temporarily'=
is<br>
sometimes enough to avoid the immediate 'shitstorm' (I'm sorry =
for<br>
lacking a better word for it) that results in some people not being able<br=
>
to accept their ban.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I tend to agree with t=
he above; but that being said:</div><div><br></div><div>This still feels li=
ke a half-measure? Until the community is willing to part with some of the =
contributors who "add value" but who act inappropriately...I'=
m not sure the half-measures are sufficient. At some point we must say &quo=
t;we value a community that is safe more than individual contributors"=
. We certainly see some measure of the negatively in terms of recruitment v=
olume (people not joining due to the process, or due to the hostile develop=
ment environment) as well as the developers who contribute less or leave en=
tirely.</div><div><br></div><div>Are the contributions of these "inapp=
ropriate" contributors really so necessary for the operation of Gentoo=
? Perhaps if we improved the community (by enforcing the standards we alrea=
dy have) we might increase our developer ranks by tapping into the people w=
ho have been turned off by the past behavior of the community.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>-A</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">=C2=A0</=
blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
As for point B, I believe that there is also a serious difference when<br>
the user is pointed to another channel where he can express his opinion<br>
freely.=C2=A0</blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class=3D""><br>
> This isn't to say I advocate against trying, but it might just end=
up the<br>
> same as today.<br>
><br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to &#=
39;ignore<br>
> > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to ha=
ppen right<br>
> > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this =
doesn't<br>
> > really solve the problem because:<br>
> ><br>
> > I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails e=
ven if<br>
> > nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of re=
plying<br>
> > to themselves.<br>
> ><br>
> > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscrib=
er will<br>
> > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repe=
atedly<br>
> > be lured into discussing with them.<br>
> ><br>
> > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, becau=
se it<br>
> > silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, =
because<br>
> > the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen<b=
r>
> > as a sign of shameful silent admittance.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> So now we only silently consent to misbehavior on mailing lists beside=
s<br>
> 'gentoo-dev'?<br>
<br>
</span>Yes, that's pretty much the idea. I have failed to convince peop=
le who<br>
could solve the problem to do so. So I'm falling back to cleaning up my=
<br>
own backyard to at least solve one part of the problem that particularly<br=
>
bothers me.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
--<br>
Best regards,<br>
Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
--001a11458d545574ba055f7999d8--