[gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

Hello, everyone.

This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
and solve some of the problems they are facing today.


Problems
========

Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:

1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
person are seriously demotivating to everyone.

2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
you don't even get a single on-topic reply.

3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.


All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
activity.

For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!


Proposal
========

Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
establish the following changes to the mailing lists:

1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.

1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.

1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.

2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.

2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.


Rationale
=========

I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
options to no avail.

The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:

A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
create more noise than leaving the issue as is.

B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
hate speech that carries no value to anyone].

C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].


The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
really solve the problem because:

I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
to themselves.

II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
be lured into discussing with them.

III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
as a sign of shameful silent admittance.


Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of
the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we
can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software
and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to
change that.

Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good
moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without
causing huge delays, moderation has a number of own problems:

α) the delays will make discussions more cumbersome, and render posting
confusing to users,

β) they will implicitly cause some overlap of replies (e.g. when N
different people answer the same question because they don't see earlier
replies until they're past moderation),

γ) the problem will be solved only partially -- what if a reply contains
both valuable info and personal attack?


Seeing that no other effort so far has succeeded in solving the problem,
splitting the mailing lists seems the best solution so far. Most
notably:

а. Developer mailing lists are restored to their original purpose.

б. It is 'fair'. Unlike with disciplinary actions, there is no judgment
problem, just a clear split between 'developers' and 'non-developers'.

в. 'Expert users' are still provided with a mailing list where they can
discuss Gentoo without being pushed down into 'user support' channels.

г. Active contributors (in particular recruits) can still obtain posting
access to the mailing lists, much like they do obtain it to #gentoo-dev
right now. However, if they start misbehaving we can just remove that
without the risk of evasion.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1629 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2017, Michał Górny wrote:

> Proposal
> ========

> Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> establish the following changes to the mailing lists:

> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.

> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.

> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.

> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.

> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has
> now.

I don't believe that introducing a category of "expert users", in
addition to developers and users, makes much sense. What mark would
distinguish the gentoo-expert list from gentoo-dev on the one hand,
and gentoo-user on the other hand?

Generally I think that our mailing lists should be defined by topic
and not by target audience.

So, how about this instead:

ᚠ᛬ Do the changes proposed in points 1., 1a. and 1b. from above, but
only for the gentoo-dev mailing list.

ᚢ᛬ Revive the gentoo-council mailing list and move all council related
business from -project to there. The same rules as for -dev would
apply to -council, i.e. 1., 1a. and 1b.

ᚦ᛬ No changes to the gentoo-project mailing list.

This would still keep gentoo-dev free of trolls, and at the same time
(re-)introduce a clean communication channel for council related
postings.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6966 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
>
>
> Problems
> ========
>
> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
>
> 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
>
> 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
>
> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
>
>
> All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> activity.
>
> For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!


>
> Proposal
> ========
>
> Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
>
> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.


> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>
>
> Rationale
> =========
>
> I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> options to no avail.
>
> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
>
> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
>
> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
>
> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
>

A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposing.
The only difference is
that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post.
But lets say hyptothetically
Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev
list. If ComRel will not take any action
(due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?

This isn't to say I advocate against trying, but it might just end up the
same as today.


>
> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> really solve the problem because:
>
> I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> to themselves.
>
> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> be lured into discussing with them.
>
> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
>

So now we only silently consent to misbehavior on mailing lists besides
'gentoo-dev'?

-A


>
>
> Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of
> the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we
> can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software
> and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to
> change that.
>
> Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good
> moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without
> causing huge delays, moderation has a number of own problems:
>
> α) the delays will make discussions more cumbersome, and render posting
> confusing to users,
>
> β) they will implicitly cause some overlap of replies (e.g. when N
> different people answer the same question because they don't see earlier
> replies until they're past moderation),
>
> γ) the problem will be solved only partially -- what if a reply contains
> both valuable info and personal attack?
>
>
> Seeing that no other effort so far has succeeded in solving the problem,
> splitting the mailing lists seems the best solution so far. Most
> notably:
>
> а. Developer mailing lists are restored to their original purpose.
>
> б. It is 'fair'. Unlike with disciplinary actions, there is no judgment
> problem, just a clear split between 'developers' and 'non-developers'.
>
> в. 'Expert users' are still provided with a mailing list where they can
> discuss Gentoo without being pushed down into 'user support' channels.
>
> г. Active contributors (in particular recruits) can still obtain posting
> access to the mailing lists, much like they do obtain it to #gentoo-dev
> right now. However, if they start misbehaving we can just remove that
> without the risk of evasion.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8394 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1071 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
>

On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be
better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who
move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
the specific posts if necessary?

2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>

I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the
audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from
existing mailing lists?

Cheers,

Dirkjan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1653 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶46 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller
napisał:
> > > > > > On Sun, 03 Dec 2017, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Proposal
> > ========
> > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has
> > now.
> 
> I don't believe that introducing a category of "expert users", in
> addition to developers and users, makes much sense. What mark would
> distinguish the gentoo-expert list from gentoo-dev on the one hand,
> and gentoo-user on the other hand?

My idea was to introduce the following gradation: user -> expert user ->
developer. The difference between 'users' and 'expert users' being that
the former usually look for basic support and help while the latter
usually don't need explicit help and are more interested in influencing
how the distribution is developed.

> Generally I think that our mailing lists should be defined by topic
> and not by target audience.
> 
> So, how about this instead:
> 
> ᚠ᛬ Do the changes proposed in points 1., 1a. and 1b. from above, but
> only for the gentoo-dev mailing list.
> 
> ᚢ᛬ Revive the gentoo-council mailing list and move all council related
> business from -project to there. The same rules as for -dev would
> apply to -council, i.e. 1., 1a. and 1b.

I think this point is worthwhile considering separately. A split between
'Council agenda' and pure replies, and the related discussion may
certainly be beneficial to some degree. That is, as topics for
the Council meeting are discussed separately from the agenda
submissions, and we don't end up splitting the discussion in two.

> 
> ᚦ᛬ No changes to the gentoo-project mailing list.

Well, my idea was to use -dev and -project to split between technical
and non-technical topics, with both mailing lists being otherwise
equivalent. Furthermore, I should point out that the problems have
historically applied to both of those mailing lists, and I'm worried
that this variant would only result in 'trolls' shifting their
activities towards the latter channel.

However, we could try this variant as well, if you think it'll help.

> This would still keep gentoo-dev free of trolls, and at the same time
> (re-)introduce a clean communication channel for council related
> postings.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶52 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner
napisał:
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hello, everyone.
> > 
> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > 
> > 
> > Problems
> > ========
> > 
> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > 
> > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> > 
> > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> > 
> > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> > 
> > 
> > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> > activity.
> > 
> > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
> 
> 
> > 
> > Proposal
> > ========
> > 
> > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > 
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> 
> 
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > 
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> > 
> > 
> > Rationale
> > =========
> > 
> > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> > options to no avail.
> > 
> > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> > 
> > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> > 
> > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> > 
> > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> > 
> 
> A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposing.
> The only difference is
> that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post.
> But lets say hyptothetically
> Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev
> list. If ComRel will not take any action
> (due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?

Well, I believe the main difference is that the approval process makes
it harder to evade a ban.

If you need a voice, you need to get a developer to vouch for you.
If you have just been banned, you won't immediately regain the access
for the same identity. And unless you've actively maintaining a second
identity for yourself, you won't get immediate access to evade the ban.

Yes, it only solves the problem temporarily. However, 'temporarily' is
sometimes enough to avoid the immediate 'shitstorm' (I'm sorry for
lacking a better word for it) that results in some people not being able
to accept their ban.

As for point B, I believe that there is also a serious difference when
the user is pointed to another channel where he can express his opinion
freely.

> This isn't to say I advocate against trying, but it might just end up the
> same as today.
> 
> 
> > 
> > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> > really solve the problem because:
> > 
> > I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> > nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> > to themselves.
> > 
> > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> > be lured into discussing with them.
> > 
> > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> > silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> > the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> > as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
> > 
> 
> So now we only silently consent to misbehavior on mailing lists besides
> 'gentoo-dev'?

Yes, that's pretty much the idea. I have failed to convince people who
could solve the problem to do so. So I'm falling back to cleaning up my
own backyard to at least solve one part of the problem that particularly
bothers me.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 21∶30 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan
Ochtman napisał:
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > 
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> > 
> 
> On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be
> better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who
> move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> the specific posts if necessary?

I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj
has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did,
moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low-
traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well.

> 
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > 
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the
> audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from
> existing mailing lists?

The audience is expect users who usually don't need basic support
but instead want to discuss the development of Gentoo and want to have
some impact on where it goes.

The main goal is to be able to restore more developers to gentoo-dev@,
and be able to focus it on feedback and reviews.

In other words, the goal is that if the attitude on gentoo-expert
becomes impossible to bear, the developers can unsubscribe from that
list without actually losing the ability to give feedback on important
Gentoo issues.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dirkjan

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

W dniu sob, 02.12.2017 o godzinie 19∶33 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1
napisał:
> Hello,
> 
> In every mailing list conversation, there are at least three people:
> the two conversing, and the future reader. I point this out as I think
> it important that everyone realize that not all posts are written for
> those immediately participating in the conversation.
> 
> Some time ago I was offered some equipment due to my history of
> open-source contributions to a variety of projects. I asked the donor
> to forward it (or money) to the Gentoo foundation, but they declined,
> citing a general distaste for the management of software projects in
> general and specific issues they believed existed within Gentoo.

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the topic at hand. There are many
issues within Gentoo. I'm trying to address one of them.

> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Hello, everyone.
> > 
> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > 
> 
> If you have in fact discussed this off list with people who agree, I
> think it is important that you invite them to comment. Not only will
> it show support for what you have detailed, it will allow them to
> explain the problems they have in greater detail, so that perhaps a
> solution that does not involve restricting list access could be found.

This sentence merely focuses on 'don't shoot the messenger' part which
will happen anyway. Those people won't come here to '+1' the proposal
because this mailing list is not supposed to be about mail popularity
contests.

Also because they don't want to be targeted by people misbehaving here.
In fact, a number of them already pinged me today privately showing
support, and some of them told me exactly that -- that they don't want
to become a target of aggression. A few participants of this mailing
list have shown harassment towards people that stood up to them --
including constant insults on various public and private channels.

> 
> It may be that I am misunderstanding your language, but what you have
> presented does not leave many things open for discussion. It seems
> like what you have presented is to be either accepted or rejected as
> is. Seeing as my opinion does not matter, it further seems like it
> will simply be accepted as is.

I simply don't believe that after so many iterations there's any more
option that hasn't been tried or rejected already.

> > 
> > Problems
> > ========
> > 
> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > 
> > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> > 
> 
> No one has any right to not be offended. If Gentoo developers are
> receiving criticism for their behavior, then perhaps it would be best
> that they critically analyze their actions and the effect that they
> have on other people.
> 
> As far as I am aware most developers never get harassed and go quietly
> on about their business. I have even asked some questions similar to
> the questions I have asked on this list that people have felt were
> adversarial. However, these developers didn't seem to mind my
> questions and spent 5 minutes or so of their time on a response.
> 
> > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> > 
> 
> Does the list have a digest subscription option? I find that extremely
> helpful for one list I am subscribed to (Perl6 development) which is
> very high volume. On the other hand, lots of offtopic chatter would
> still be hard to sort through, but I think it needs to be considered
> whether the chatter the list currently receives is truly off topic.
> What if it is simply concerns or subjects that the OP did not want to
> consider? Does that make it off topic? Is the problem more involved
> than previously thought?
> 
> > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> > 
> 
> In the case of actual support requests, it might be worth taking some
> kind of action against the user, but the general level of competence
> of Gentoo users makes me wary that this may be a mischaracterization
> of the intent of the email. If something like a "support request"
> percolates to gentoo-dev, it may be of a similar vein as a complaint
> about a bug resolution. Complaining about bug resolutions seems valid,
> especially if questions on the tracker have been ignored.
> 
> Some developers in particular seem to not appreciate being held
> accountable for their actions. In most notable cases, all anyone ever
> does is ask for an explanation as to why something occurred - and in
> most notable cases, that question is ignored, with no recourse left to
> the user or contributor.
> 
> Personally, I tried to ask why eix's "optimizations" flag was removed,
> when other packages *do the exact same thing.* Still no response. How
> am I supposed to interpret this?

I'm sorry but the purpose of this thread is not to convince you that
the problems exist. If you haven't experienced them already, then it
would be polite of you to either accept them as a fact, or do some
research yourself.

I understand that you might want to know things. However, it is
generally impolite if someone 'comes late to the party' and starts
shouting questions that the existing participants know answers to
already. This is distorting to the conversation at hand.

In such a situation, as I said it is usually polite to try to find
the answers yourself or politely and privately query one
of the participants who you are acquainted to or is otherwise able
and willing to help you.

> 
> > 
> > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> > activity.
> > 
> > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
> > 
> 
> It may be that this is separate from the content of the mailing list.
> Do some of the developers simply not like the format of a mailing
> list? A lot of projects are now using Slack and Discourse in addition
> to IRC. I personally do not like either of those services, but some
> people think they allow reduce response times, aid in comprehension,
> allowing greater involvement of developers.
> 
> As it is, it seems to me like a lot of development happens on IRC and off list.

Yes. Sometimes only because IRC is much faster. Sometimes because using
mailing lists becomes impossible due to problems listed above.

> > 
> > Proposal
> > ========
> > 
> > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > 
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> > 
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > 
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> > 
> > 
> > Rationale
> > =========
> > 
> > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> > options to no avail.
> > 
> 
> There is an option that has not been discussed, and that is
> questioning why the gentoo-dev list receives offtopic replies,
> personal attacks, and trolling.

People's private issues are not topic of this mailing list. It is
generally impolite and unprofessional to discuss them publicly. Please
don't do that.

> > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> > 
> > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> > 
> > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> > 
> > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> > 
> 
> People only ever do things that make sense. Again, I invite the people
> who are being attacked to consider why someone cares enough to bother
> to do that. Bored teenagers go to #archlinux to have pissing contests,
> not #gentoo.
> 
> > 
> > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> > really solve the problem because:
> > 
> 
> To me this sounds like ComRel realized it is too easy to turn good
> intentions into fascism.
> 
> > I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> > nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> > to themselves.
> > 
> > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> > be lured into discussing with them.
> > 
> > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> > silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> > the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> > as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
> > 
> 
> It is also entirely possible that a new user will see the troll, agree
> with the troll, and not want to contribute to Gentoo because they
> think the troll is right.
> 
> > 
> > Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of
> > the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we
> > can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software
> > and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to
> > change that.
> > 
> > Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good
> > moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without
> > causing huge delays, moderation has a number of own problems:
> > 
> > α) the delays will make discussions more cumbersome, and render posting
> > confusing to users,
> > 
> > β) they will implicitly cause some overlap of replies (e.g. when N
> > different people answer the same question because they don't see earlier
> > replies until they're past moderation),
> > 
> > γ) the problem will be solved only partially -- what if a reply contains
> > both valuable info and personal attack?
> > 
> 
> I agree with this logic, but please be careful - it states a problem,
> presupposes a single solution, and then concludes that there is only
> one course of action based on the critique applied to that one
> solution. This is partly why I see the proposal as something which
> does not seem to be accommodating to alternate viewpoints. It makes
> addressing this section with an alternate viewpoint difficult, and if
> I ignore it then it looks like I ignored part of your argument.
> 
> > 
> > Seeing that no other effort so far has succeeded in solving the problem,
> > splitting the mailing lists seems the best solution so far. Most
> > notably:
> > 
> > а. Developer mailing lists are restored to their original purpose.
> > 
> > б. It is 'fair'. Unlike with disciplinary actions, there is no judgment
> > problem, just a clear split between 'developers' and 'non-developers'.
> > 
> > в. 'Expert users' are still provided with a mailing list where they can
> > discuss Gentoo without being pushed down into 'user support' channels.
> > 
> > г. Active contributors (in particular recruits) can still obtain posting
> > access to the mailing lists, much like they do obtain it to #gentoo-dev
> > right now. However, if they start misbehaving we can just remove that
> > without the risk of evasion.
> > 
> 
> I feel this is still a fairly large barrier to involvement. Getting
> people to the point they want to contribute or have the knowledge to
> contribute is the hard part, and what this will make harder to do.

A mailing list is not strictly essential to contributing to Gentoo.
I can't think of it being to much use of any recently recruited
developers.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Matt Turner]

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
>
> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.

That's absurd. "We shouldn't enforce rules because people can break the rules"

> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].

That's absurd. There's no reason to have to tolerate non-constructive
conversation on our own mailing lists. Classify it as off topic. We
tell people their posts are off topic for a particular mailing list
all the time.

> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].

That's absurd. You have to look at where the problem starts to fix it,
not engage in whataboutism.

> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> really solve the problem because:

That's absurd. The whole point of bringing problems to ComRel is so
they can solve it. Telling people to deal with it is explicitly not
solving the problem.


The Gentoo community (not just the developers) would stand to benefit
from a capable and competent ComRel team. It's very sad that we don't
have that.

Unfortunately, my experience is much the same as yours. ComRel
explicitly refused to act when a bug reporter was repeatedly abusive,
instead arguing that he didn't do anything wrong and that I shouldn't
be so offended. Even the user disagreed with ComRel, apologizing and
saying that his own behavior was out of line when I confronted him.
That's absurd.

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Matt Turner]

A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list:

There's been research, on this, and the study by harvard business
school was summarized and discussed by NPR in 2015:

[ Turns out toxic coworkers are more
than just an annoyance. A new study
out of the Harvard Business School
warns that bullying workers are more costly,
even if they are more productive. ] -- NPR description

https://www.npr.org/2015/12/16/460024322/harvard-business-school-study-highlights-costs-of-toxic-workers
https://goo.gl/g8Ujuk (short URL of the same)

With gentoo being a non-profit organization, an alternative way to
view it could be the trade-off of seeing developers / maintainers /
staff leave, and any "lost profits" are in the form of community
relations, image, and willingness for ongoing productive work by those
who remain with the gentoo organization.

Research paper itself (which includes supporting 57 citations)

http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf
https://goo.gl/42A8v7 (short URL of the same)

... and was itself cited a dozen or times:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5443947091657980238
https://goo.gl/obvdzh (short URL of the same)

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> With gentoo being a non-profit organization, an alternative way to
> view it could be the trade-off of seeing developers / maintainers /
> staff leave

It isn't just the risk of leaving, but the risk of them never joining
in the first place.

If a flamewar goes back and forth, then it creates an environment
where only people who like to participate in flamewars will want to
join (thus creating a positive feedback loop).

If a troll periodically posts and everybody ignores them, then it
creates an environment where it seems as if the developers ignore the
users (an outsider could mistake trolling for questions/feedback), and
thus people will assume it is a toxic environment and not want to
join.

While I'm sure toxic coworkers are a problem in any organization, I
suspect they're far more impactful when the organization effectively
broadcasts their activity to the entire world.

I'm all for free expression.  That doesn't mean that Gentoo needs to
expend its resources to broadcast messages that actually harm Gentoo,
or provide a platform for people who have done egregious things (like
unwanted gender-based attention, attacking people over disabilities,
or whatever), whether the victims of such activities have been dragged
through the mud publicly or not.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8016 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶52 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner
> napisał:
> > On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but
> it
> > > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > >
> > >
> > > Problems
> > > ========
> > >
> > > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > >
> > > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> > > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> > > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> > > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> > >
> > > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> > > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> > > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> > > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst,
> sometimes
> > > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> > >
> > > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> > > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> > > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> > > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> > >
> > >
> > > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible
> to
> > > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> > > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> > > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> > > activity.
> > >
> > > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> > > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> > > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Proposal
> > > ========
> > >
> > > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> > > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > >
> > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > >
> > > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > >
> > > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> >
> >
> > > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > >
> > > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has
> now.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rationale
> > > =========
> > >
> > > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> > > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all
> other
> > > options to no avail.
> > >
> > > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> > > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> > > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> > > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> > >
> > > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> > > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> > >
> > > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> > > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> > >
> > > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> > > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> > >
> >
> > A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposing.
> > The only difference is
> > that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post.
> > But lets say hyptothetically
> > Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev
> > list. If ComRel will not take any action
> > (due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?
>
> Well, I believe the main difference is that the approval process makes
> it harder to evade a ban.
>
> If you need a voice, you need to get a developer to vouch for you.
> If you have just been banned, you won't immediately regain the access
> for the same identity. And unless you've actively maintaining a second
> identity for yourself, you won't get immediate access to evade the ban.
>

Oh it was not clear we would ban people from the proposed 'gentoo-dev' list
based on your proposal.
Is someone (Comrel?) willing to do that?


>
> Yes, it only solves the problem temporarily. However, 'temporarily' is
> sometimes enough to avoid the immediate 'shitstorm' (I'm sorry for
> lacking a better word for it) that results in some people not being able
> to accept their ban.


I tend to agree with the above; but that being said:

This still feels like a half-measure? Until the community is willing to
part with some of the contributors who "add value" but who act
inappropriately...I'm not sure the half-measures are sufficient. At some
point we must say "we value a community that is safe more than individual
contributors". We certainly see some measure of the negatively in terms of
recruitment volume (people not joining due to the process, or due to the
hostile development environment) as well as the developers who contribute
less or leave entirely.

Are the contributions of these "inappropriate" contributors really so
necessary for the operation of Gentoo? Perhaps if we improved the community
(by enforcing the standards we already have) we might increase our
developer ranks by tapping into the people who have been turned off by the
past behavior of the community.

-A




> As for point B, I believe that there is also a serious difference when
> the user is pointed to another channel where he can express his opinion
> freely.


> > This isn't to say I advocate against trying, but it might just end up the
> > same as today.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> > > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> > > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this
> doesn't
> > > really solve the problem because:
> > >
> > > I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> > > nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> > > to themselves.
> > >
> > > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber
> will
> > > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> > > be lured into discussing with them.
> > >
> > > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> > > silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly,
> because
> > > the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> > > as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
> > >
> >
> > So now we only silently consent to misbehavior on mailing lists besides
> > 'gentoo-dev'?
>
> Yes, that's pretty much the idea. I have failed to convince people who
> could solve the problem to do so. So I'm falling back to cleaning up my
> own backyard to at least solve one part of the problem that particularly
> bothers me.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10179 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1485 bytes --]

On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote:
> A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list:
>
> There's been research, on this, and the study by harvard business
> school was summarized and discussed by NPR in 2015:
>
> [ Turns out toxic coworkers are more
> than just an annoyance. A new study
> out of the Harvard Business School
> warns that bullying workers are more costly,
> even if they are more productive. ] -- NPR description
>
> https://www.npr.org/2015/12/16/460024322/harvard-business-school-study-highlights-costs-of-toxic-workers
> https://goo.gl/g8Ujuk (short URL of the same)
>
> With gentoo being a non-profit organization, an alternative way to
> view it could be the trade-off of seeing developers / maintainers /
> staff leave, and any "lost profits" are in the form of community
> relations, image, and willingness for ongoing productive work by those
> who remain with the gentoo organization.
>
> Research paper itself (which includes supporting 57 citations)
>
> http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf
> https://goo.gl/42A8v7 (short URL of the same)
>
> ... and was itself cited a dozen or times:
>
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5443947091657980238
> https://goo.gl/obvdzh (short URL of the same)
>
I refer you also to a former Gentoo developer's talk on "A$$holes on
your project" ... [1]

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZSli7QW4rg


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 919 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it
> be
> > better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators
> who
> > move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> > the specific posts if necessary?
>
> I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj
> has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did,
> moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low-
> traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well.
>

Maybe we should move to a more modern list manager? I'm pretty sure mailman
can do this kind of stuff trivially. It feels bad if we have to institute
suboptimal processes due to crappy tooling, if better alternatives are
readily available.

Regards,

Dirkjan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1364 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

W dniu pon, 04.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶18 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan
Ochtman napisał:
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > > On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it
> > 
> > be
> > > better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators
> > 
> > who
> > > move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> > > the specific posts if necessary?
> > 
> > I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj
> > has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did,
> > moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low-
> > traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well.
> > 
> 
> Maybe we should move to a more modern list manager? I'm pretty sure mailman
> can do this kind of stuff trivially. It feels bad if we have to institute
> suboptimal processes due to crappy tooling, if better alternatives are
> readily available.
> 

I'm all for it, as long as someone is actually going to do the necessary
work within the next, say, 4 weeks. I'd really like to avoid once again
having no resolution whatsoever just to wait for never-to-come upgrade.

I should point out that this includes:

1. Switch to another mailing list software without breaking stuff. This
needs someone from Infra really willing and being able to do it.

2. Establishing a clear policy on how moderation should be performed.
Without a clear policy, the effects could be far worse than status quo.

3. Establishing a good and trusted moderators team. Normally I'd say
ComRel could do that but given their inability to react within the last
year...

So, anyone volunteering to do the work?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶06 -0800, użytkownik Matt Turner
napisał:
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> > 
> > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> 
> That's absurd. "We shouldn't enforce rules because people can break the rules"
> 
> > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> 
> That's absurd. There's no reason to have to tolerate non-constructive
> conversation on our own mailing lists. Classify it as off topic. We
> tell people their posts are off topic for a particular mailing list
> all the time.
> 
> > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> 
> That's absurd. You have to look at where the problem starts to fix it,
> not engage in whataboutism.
> 
> > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> > really solve the problem because:
> 
> That's absurd. The whole point of bringing problems to ComRel is so
> they can solve it. Telling people to deal with it is explicitly not
> solving the problem.
> 
> 
> The Gentoo community (not just the developers) would stand to benefit
> from a capable and competent ComRel team. It's very sad that we don't
> have that.
> 
> Unfortunately, my experience is much the same as yours. ComRel
> explicitly refused to act when a bug reporter was repeatedly abusive,
> instead arguing that he didn't do anything wrong and that I shouldn't
> be so offended. Even the user disagreed with ComRel, apologizing and
> saying that his own behavior was out of line when I confronted him.
> That's absurd.

I have to formally point out that during this Council's term we haven't
had a single complaint about actions (or lack thereof) of ComRel.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 23∶59 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1
napisał:
> As noted, there is one: analyzing the actions of those who are being
> "attacked" to see why people are bothering to do it in the first
> place. I sincerely doubt the offensive parties are doing what they are
> doing without cause.

Most of the affected developers are perfectly aware of the purpose of
those attacks. If there was anything to be done to resolve the situation
peacefully, we'd have done it long time ago. However, we can't and are
not going to yield to people's unfounded demands based purely
on the pressure inflicted by their misbehavior.

I believe this is as far as I can answer you. Going beyond that goes
into public judgment of private issues which is unacceptable on this
mailing list.

> But no, the Gentoo developers are always above reproach.

This remark is highly inappropriate.

> > I'm sorry but the purpose of this thread is not to convince you that
> > the problems exist. If you haven't experienced them already, then it
> > would be polite of you to either accept them as a fact, or do some
> > research yourself.
> > 
> 
> Your job is not to convince me, personally, but the future reader of
> this list. If you have given up on doing so then you have admitted
> that you do not want to be held accountable for your actions because
> you do not feel you need to explain why you are doing what you are
> doing.

It is quite ironic that you worry about a 'future reader' needing to be
convinced in this past post (presuming you have some infinite knowledge
of what kind of details would a 'future reader' consider satisfying)
and at the same time you clearly reject to search for any past posts
on the topic.

Also, I should point out that you don't get to tell me what my job is.
If you believe this thread should contain such data, please collect it
yourself in your own time and include it in a reply. However, I should
point out that you should respect all the rules we're talking about.
I'd rather spend the time doing something that is of much greater
importance of Gentoo users than some potential decision that will
probably no longer be remembered in 12 months, except in snarky
comments.

> > I understand that you might want to know things. However, it is
> > generally impolite if someone 'comes late to the party' and starts
> > shouting questions that the existing participants know answers to
> > already. This is distorting to the conversation at hand.
> > 
> 
> I am not shouting. I am politely, but pointedly, asking questions that
> you ostensibly should already have the answer to. If you do not have
> the answer, then I feel it is clear to future readers of the list that
> you are making decisions for nonsensical reasons.

I should point out that your personal attacks are also unacceptable.
If you disagree with the proposal, then please focus on discussing facts
and not trying to prove your opponent's incompetence.

> > People's private issues are not topic of this mailing list. It is
> > generally impolite and unprofessional to discuss them publicly. Please
> > don't do that.
> > 
> 
> If the messages are being posted to gentoo-dev then I don't see why
> you consider the issue private. At least one party intends it to be
> public, probably because it's not a personal attack and is related to
> Gentoo.

One side being unprofessional does not excuse the other from being so.
It only causes very unfair 'community judgment' where community judges
based on abusive facts of one side where the other side is unable to
provide counter-arguments without violating the privacy rules.

Please consider that you have exhausted all the time I had available for
you. Please do not expect any further answers from me, and give others
a fair chance of getting developers' attention.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Aaron W. Swenson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 677 bytes --]

On 2017-12-03 00:18, Michał Górny wrote:
> …snip…

I understand, and sympathize with, the motivation to create another list
and restrict gentoo-dev. And, I agree with most of the points,
especially given some of the more recent events.

I still vote no.

gentoo-dev is supposed to be for open discussions on the development of
Gentoo. I’ve come to expect to have some not so pleasant or diplomatic
replies.

Yes, there are a couple individuals that are being awfully noisy, but
the vaster majority are not. By splitting the list, we’re just moving that
noise elsewhere so we can ignore them.

This proposal avoids rather than addresses the problem.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 376 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1128 bytes --]

On 12/05/2017 11:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
>> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
>> which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
>> tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?
> 
> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
> information being presented, or they disagree with it.
> 

This whole email thread is actually one of the examples of where split
lists is a bad thing, the original message was cross-posted between
gentoo-project and gentoo-dev with a reply-to for gentoo-dev. Resulting
in split discussions across the lists. The overall discussion should've
been in -project to begin with.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
>>> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
>>> which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
>>> tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?
>>
>> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
>> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
>> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
>> information being presented, or they disagree with it.
>>
>
> This whole email thread is actually one of the examples of where split
> lists is a bad thing, the original message was cross-posted between
> gentoo-project and gentoo-dev with a reply-to for gentoo-dev. Resulting
> in split discussions across the lists. The overall discussion should've
> been in -project to begin with.
>

Certainly, though if our lists actually were moderated it would be a
non-issue because all the replies to the off-topic list would have
been deleted.

Mailing lists aren't great for moderation in general though, because
it is impossible to delete a post after it has been distributed.  In a
forum something like this would be easily solved by just moving the
thread to the right place, deleting posts after the fact, and so on.

-- 
Rich