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 1I9oa2-00079k-Qz for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:51:07 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6EKnUmO030429; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:49:30 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 l6EKkwWC027035 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:46:58 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA11865377 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:46:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: 0.883 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.883 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.618, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.5] 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 b0GXxA-hLbX8 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:46:56 +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 EC9736536D for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:46:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I9oVw-0007l0-30 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:46:52 +0200 Received: from 82.153.141.64 ([82.153.141.64]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:46:52 +0200 Received: from slong by 82.153.141.64 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:46:52 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Smoother moderation scheme? Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:48:48 +0100 Message-ID: References: <46968E00.4070202@gentoo.org> <1184356016.6766.1200057851@webmail.messagingengine.com> <469829B4.1000302@gmail.com> <469860F4.2040900@gentoo.org> <1184434998.6676.28.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> 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=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.153.141.64 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: b3901502-837b-4484-9715-8d0c0c45b97d X-Archives-Hash: 1f0207cbaf7aee1808174ff1c35889b5 William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 10:24 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: >> Alin N?stac wrote: >> >> > Do you have a solution to filter flamefests out of a ml? If you do, >> > please share it with the list. >> >> Please give one example of a mailing list plagued by flamefests that >> successfully solved their problems by adopting moderation without >> completely alienating their communities. > > With two lists we could potentially reduce a single unified bonfire into > two controlled burns :) > You already have two lists. Your argument that core is for more private stuff, but not developer communication seems odd. My impression (never having seen a core message) is that core doesn't actually function that well, since dev v dev flames spill onto this list. If you are saying that all developer discussion is supposed to happen on dev, fine, but I really do not understand why that should mean users are not allowed to contribute as you suggested in your other post. As for moderation, the simple fact is that your devs have neither the time nor the experience to do such a job. The ones that have the inclination should probably be kept from it, in the same way that those who lust after power should never get it. If you want the list to function of course you need to have moderators who can suspend access or warn people to back off. When my access was suspended, I didn't like it but I accepted the team's decision-- because it was a team decision, from experienced moderators, not just the decision of some random dev. Good luck with reinventing everything and discussing the same stuff you have for the last year that led to the formation of the Proctors. I accept that the decision to disband them has been taken, although it seems odd that no notification of the meeting which led to this latest change was given. Obviously I think this is a major strategic error, and it's sad that rather than one member admit a mistake, the present Council has to override the consensus that took so long to reach. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list