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 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Fgoeu-0000u3-8u for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 18 May 2006 19:59:44 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4IK0AcH025623; Thu, 18 May 2006 20:00:10 GMT Received: from cs.ubishops.ca (inglit.ubishops.ca [206.167.194.132]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4IK03IM024247 for ; Thu, 18 May 2006 20:00:03 GMT Received: from jungle.tomcort.com (HSE-Toronto-ppp135333.sympatico.ca [64.228.86.102]) by cs.ubishops.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25AC43A7A4 for ; Thu, 18 May 2006 16:00:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 16:01:04 +0000 From: Thomas Cort To: gentoo-devrel@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] RFC: etiquette enforcment Message-Id: <20060518160104.7e465efb.tcort@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <446CCDCF.8040502@gentoo.org> References: <446CCDCF.8040502@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Linux X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.0.4 (GTK+ 2.8.12; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-devrel@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Thu__18_May_2006_16_01_04_+0000_p=c3NplGLvV5RmEW" X-Archives-Salt: a049bb64-7449-4a9f-924e-c5125bd58a0e X-Archives-Hash: 5e72b37173f4da5924684778cc9608e6 --Signature=_Thu__18_May_2006_16_01_04_+0000_p=c3NplGLvV5RmEW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 18 May 2006 14:41:03 -0500 Mike Doty wrote: > The flamewars on public communication channels is out of hand. it's > having an negative effect in many parts of gentoo, even those that are > not directly affected by the said war. This is something that urgently > needs to be addressed. I agree. Your suggestion is great! > Sometimes people need a bigger kick in the ass though, which is where a > short term ban helps. When I say a short term ban, I mean 30-90 > minutes. it allows everyone to cool off without them using bad judgment > and popping back in. I do similar enforcement in #-amd64 and it works > very well. A short term ban is a good idea, it lets people know they did something wro= ng without interrupting their development work. May I suggest that it only = be a ban on sending mail to the list, not recieving it. It would be a pain = for someone who was banned to have to search through the archives to find a= ll of the messages within a specific time window. =20 > This still doesn't address repeat offenders and people who troll for > sport. It's possible that the short term bans will work, but that is > something that we will only find out with experience. I guess you could log every ban, then come up with a formula for finding re= peat offenders (X number of bans in Y days will get devrel knocking on your= door). ~tcort --Signature=_Thu__18_May_2006_16_01_04_+0000_p=c3NplGLvV5RmEW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEbJpEQRqjKWbcq9ERApdwAKDXUWq0ASiN8oAOvUnHreLUK+YzqQCgxF9p PLDRmsJJrvSFZDjarikdeFo= =tQTQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Thu__18_May_2006_16_01_04_+0000_p=c3NplGLvV5RmEW-- -- gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org mailing list