From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Hxb5T-0001P1-Nz for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 04:01:04 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l5B3xa2e032479; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:59:36 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l5B3vf9L030258 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:57:41 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B3C6502C for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:57:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.807 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.807 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.807] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88+vCPNjhQ7J for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:57:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B1864F1D for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:57:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hxafj-0002aT-Hp for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:34:28 +0200 Received: from static24-72-114-155.yorkton.accesscomm.ca ([24.72.114.155]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:34:27 +0200 Received: from dirtyepic by static24-72-114-155.yorkton.accesscomm.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:34:27 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Ryan Hill Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:27:44 -0600 Message-ID: References: <4667A38B.7070308@gentoo.org> <20070611021535.GE5778@seldon> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: static24-72-114-155.yorkton.accesscomm.ca User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5pre (X11/20070608) In-Reply-To: <20070611021535.GE5778@seldon> Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 20cda921-363e-47de-b7a4-c4f5c936b068 X-Archives-Hash: 84ebb1f0ce87f8f258eb32bcc53fc647 Brian Harring wrote: > Guess I'll be the killjoy, and throw in the -1 on it. > > Reasons are pretty straightforward (at least to me): I originally agreed with you, but after giving it some thought I think it might help. > 1) Creating such channels is just attempting to shift the problem out > of sight. This is true, if you consider the problem to be that a) we are required to be subscribed to -dev b) we don't want to spend our time sorting the signal from the noise (where noise is defined as politics or non-technical debates or rhetoric) c) such noise kills developer interest and motivation and generally makes us frowny-faced. Shifting it out of sight is kinda the point. We've already tried (extensively) to make people get along together and it's obviously not working. We need to acknowledge that and try another approach. > 2) Shifting said problem into a concentrated arena means the incidence > of idiot conflicts/trolling/needling/whatever is likely to increase I don't think so. Every rule of conduct that currently applies to -dev should also apply to -project. It's not OTW, just the non-technical half (5/6ths? ;)) of -dev. > 3) said increase means proctors/devrel have more work (meaning more > random outbursts at the proctors/devrel when folks realize that they > *are* going to enforce the behaviour rules, and that the outburstes > can be punished too). It should probably be made clear beforehand then that these rules are still in effect. > 4) look through -dev history; the issue isn't OT discussion, it's > people needling/harassing/trolling/(chose your verb) kicking off yet > another "mine is bigger" last word battle on the ml. By making -dev 'technical discussions only', the vast majority of that needling/harassing/trolling becomes OT. Now, of course, you can still have a firefight in a technical debate, but history shows it to be far less common than in a political discussion. > Basically, what does this solve? If the intention is to create an OTW > equivalent for the forums, sure, go nuts, but I strongly doubt it'll > improve things on -dev. This is nothing like OTW. Posts still need to be on-topic and we still need to pretend we actually like each other. ;) Of course, neither of us has a crystal ball (at least I know I don't), so either one of us could be wrong. PS. this thread is a good example of something that would belong on gentoo-project. ;) -- dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed gentoo org it could suck an ancient virus from the sea 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list