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 1I9pin-00037h-H2 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:04:13 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6EM3GdS003328; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:03:16 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 l6EM0YPq031913 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:00:35 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C29651F5 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:00:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.675 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.675 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.676, BAYES_50=0.001] 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 E6pNIYidfrJM for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:00:32 +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 32FE0652E8 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:00:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I9pf3-0004zn-RD for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:00:21 +0200 Received: from static24-72-113-196.yorkton.accesscomm.ca ([24.72.113.196]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:00:21 +0200 Received: from dirtyepic by static24-72-113-196.yorkton.accesscomm.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:00:21 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Ryan Hill Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:59:55 -0600 Message-ID: References: <46993A04.6060806@gentoo.org> 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: static24-72-113-196.yorkton.accesscomm.ca User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5pre (X11/20070713) In-Reply-To: <46993A04.6060806@gentoo.org> Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 786376c2-1ee1-4200-ada8-1689181ab20c X-Archives-Hash: 6c046994ee4cc7ed997d0f2195aa4be9 Christina Fullam wrote: > I suppose the problem is high-volume and excessive flaming/trolling/OT. > The proposed solution asks that every developer take an active role, > yes, so that could easily equal more work - but I have little doubts > that there are developers that will take an interest in doing it. > > However, all that aside, here is another way this change could be > implemented: > > -core stays private. I really dont see the need to change IMO. Agreed. > -project (call it what you will) would be for the off topic, non > development emails that we so commonly see. this list would be optional > for all developers. Agreed. Though "off-topic" could be replaced by "non-technical". > -dev (no preference for the name) would be for development discussion > for devs and non-devs alike. everyone would all start out on a > whitelist. any developer could opt to move a dev or non-dev to the > moderated list (meaning their emails would be delayed allowing for > moderation or simple release after a given time period). > > The check and balance for this would be that if any developer was found > to be moderating someone unnecessarily, that developer themself would be > moved to the moderated list by devrel for a time period without any > access rights to change anything further themselves. Repeat offenders > would be reviewed by devrel for further action if needed. this list > would be required for all developers. I'd prefer short-term banning to moderating. Once an individual is moderated, who is expected to review their mails? Who is reviewing the reviews? Is devrel really prepared, in resources and spirit, to evaluate every email sent by a moderated individual? If you feel you are, then you have my support. > I dont think for a moment that it is only non-devs causing this > excessive amount of email which often results in flaming/trolling. I do > agree that everyone should be bound by the same rules. Agreed. > Thoughts? -- 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