Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Shutting down the Off the Wall

[Andreas Sturmlechner <asturm@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1920 bytes --]

On Dienstag, 8. Dezember 2020 14:02:09 CET Roy Bamford wrote:
> I think that you have missed the main point I was trying to make.
> The problem is the council destroying their own credibility.
> It just happens that the vehicle of choice is the forums OTW but it
> could hove been anything.

I can see that you *want* to make a point, but you're telling us that 

> the initial report was an email to council on a closed list, with a
> CC: to the the forums team.

- when it was sent to -core (yes, a closed list), not council
- and forum-mods in CC: (but they won't reply because of 60s' netiquette)
- neither is it 'the' initial report when we consider the 2019 -project
  thread that had remained unresolved
- ...which incidentally also did not get any more forum-mods involvement with
  exception of desultory (who seems to speak for all of them all the time?)

At this point it should be clear that Gentoo devs have concerns about one part 
of the forums that go beyond reporting individual incidents and nothing is 
stopping forum mods from telling us about their plans, if they have some, 
while there even is some upgrade in development that might give new 
possibilities. They should know best how to organise themselves, after all, 
and I don't see volunteers queueing up for them. Instead we have desultory 
going off on tangents and hardening some us-vs-them sentiment while the next 
Council meeting is approaching and this topic is very foreseeable - and here 
we are.

For me, with OTW hidden from public a minimum goal was met (and it should have 
happened a long time ago), but I can see why it is not enough for others. The 
trash produced in OTW by non-Gentoo-affiliated members is in no relation to 
the role it serves in keeping the support forums clean, and I doubt you can 
easily change such a long established subculture without making a clean cut, 
but you may as well prove me wrong.

Regards

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]