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 589271382C5 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:35:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C346E09F1; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:35:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf0-x22d.google.com (mail-pf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) (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 20998E097E for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:35:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id f15so2807280pfn.0 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:35:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=WlvHpVMuOMtA6j6YOYdfKgkU7JA5UAWjuZYHqt/ev3A=; b=nMXVwtftAMSqjFSsGm3B/0yXoTWORz8Pn1x06+1Nc85o4Sw5Ir72vAHkMJ25bNzOG7 7J2EczY/1/GhxjXI7eHsbY/DPsGb69i9l90ZZan7SIR1Gws1A00gJHxohTzyVvb72XnF BCOxo5JIEhTlAcdYCs0uKplI14rMOUEgYeAAp+STF462wtdq9sST6eyavrNOZ87NrQqI vFwoirMo4ylWBxf9auJpsW93ZzOhVcp2XTB3NOiVfkBTdVvCSFErq3ecPtiCvlzz+Xo2 jN9wB2hcUk1nLWFzu8e+YJYL4t+A79oN9Tq+R58CDoxWWd/bRJ5iVC8UttR6gnJSGLmv PL3g== 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; bh=WlvHpVMuOMtA6j6YOYdfKgkU7JA5UAWjuZYHqt/ev3A=; b=e+fPZIAS5YXRnxMFMFjAAfq3C1HHFtCQPX2vOtvFhZzLbE5zoi6nQ2pzygFqc3yjfV d/myeDB5VfLq4O6UlK58kLyvs2VKoo3EhhBBrRzmfxAW5kmf/tyM4G9SgCGqi3VQ4w1X 0MG8QqAsIRx+wQl/6t55mVM4RUR7Uug5WTou/agC+NW5opacBIXv2c/KOngrP68YCYVB 8fmKWjHtxOQf+3BzpZJgKI5mKa6eg7I/kOq+vtGfosEwF41NIeNMHLwQxhgimfCeBdXz tvcdDF0tbw9YOv5FlPruMKkt3oLIXhD2jFSOuXQHdi8UEqBDzrjoKr7ELWRs20tHp97J 7C4w== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EhjjS0RvkgOaDGGhUI1Yk/inIllBRtwHLMmnwaW+oLyZHA70Vi 9fsifWelNFom8pxy7xSgZdgkBCOrm9nq1HJdWEujdA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvmB78CUYJl+GFvyabcCWGAqBiyY8lz1VfV00fAOhHgjI+YAK6qu8kQFd0n+D2uf2ePkMPHu2EyznFx+fekVJE= X-Received: by 10.99.126.20 with SMTP id z20mr30080116pgc.38.1522136112369; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:35:12 -0700 (PDT) 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 Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.236.174.22 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:35:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <637c483e-cc1a-2e38-1463-309ce7090ea1@gmail.com> References: <4aab96fa-0edb-6a28-791e-28e2103f2a30@gentoo.org> <0818a5b0-cc1e-403f-6c08-1285999de30f@gentoo.org> <20180320160316.GA5785@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <87605qs3pi.fsf@gentoo.org> <637c483e-cc1a-2e38-1463-309ce7090ea1@gmail.com> From: Rich Freeman Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 03:35:11 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: BNGR1wlWyWSsSAzKI1pj1-rcucE Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: 0bc4c26c-a075-49cd-99d3-3e618eacfaa9 X-Archives-Hash: d777d9de8c356796c47e408cf42dcc2a On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:38 PM, kuzetsa wrote: > > I think this may be a misunderstanding? no? there might be some mailing > list jargon term: "moderation" which I was unaware of: > Historically moderation meant having list traffic held prior to distribution for approval from a moderator. > I've never used mailing list software which has that feature (I think > that may be what you're referring to) - I mostly meant someone (or a > team) with the specific duty to hold people accountable for their posts > (since the list is public-facing, this should include @gentoo.org devs > too because it sets a weird precedent to have disparate enforcement) Well, ultimately the question is whether unverified members of the community can post or not. If they can, then there is no way to hold anybody accountable for anything, because they can just create a new email address to continue posting. If you require verification prior to posting it gives everybody a reputation to have to be concerned about. > the "require whitelist / default deny" version of having a closed list > seems the same - expecting users to contact a dev to relay messages, or > go through the dubiously [un]documented process of getting whitelisted. The process is simple, and certainly could be documented on the wiki (it was already described in emails). Get a dev to whitelist you. It can be any dev, and it is up to that dev to agree to the request or not. > unless that process has a standardized format, it seems worse than the > greylist because individual developers have the autonomy to [not] > sponsor people for whitelist, or approve posting on a user's behalf. I'd consider that a feature, not a bug. Gentoo has well over 100 developers. All it takes is the approval of any one of them to be whitelisted. That is a very permissive system. If every single one of them is unwilling to whitelist somebody, is it really necessary to have every single one of them make some kind of case for their individual decisions? Who would even judge such a case, considering that all of comrel and the council (and even the current Trustees) are all developers who presumably could have done the whitelisting themselves? You could still layer something like the proctors or comrel on top of this, and they would presumably be a bit more formalized in how they operate. (The typical conception is that Proctors would have a lot of discretion but would generally only enforce short-term "punishments" like bans of a few days, warnings, and so on. On the other hand comrel would be much more formalized but would be able to take long-term action. The goal of course would be for Proctors to defuse situations before they ever get to Comrel.) -- Rich