From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F770139085 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 04:56:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F10F21C04E; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 04:56:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EAD821C043 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 04:56:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.0.17] (cpe-72-227-68-175.maine.res.rr.com [72.227.68.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: desultory) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A104F3412CB for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 04:56:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20170115195209.70d3a748.mgorny@gentoo.org> From: Dean Stephens Message-ID: <5db6cef2-34b4-6355-0563-9c242b229e08@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:56:30 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170115195209.70d3a748.mgorny@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: c53411f8-62c0-4b0b-8f2d-55661f9a6db2 X-Archives-Hash: b63a127d35a58e34b208f9f2ee5645aa On 01/15/17 14:23, Michał Górny wrote: > > What do you think? > I think this proposal is utterly unworkable in practice. While the intention is rather obvious, and heavily geared toward actual contributing members of the community at large, the proposed definitional scope and structure are incompatible with actual workloads already in place. To provide some perspective to those unfamiliar with the actual volumes in consideration here, just on the forums there are typically several "users" manually banned per day for posting spam, and perhaps a dozen or two profiles manually banned because the profiles themselves were spam, in addition to that there are typically hundreds (in some cases thousands) of accounts which are effectively automatically banned due to their spam content or at the very least matching reported user profiles on Stop Forum Spam[1]. Opening a Council bug for each of these would be an insurmountable workload if done manually, and at the very least a ludicrous volume of completely pointless mail to all Council members; but it is *exactly* what would be required by this proposal. As for the potential counterargument that bots could be easily dropped from the definition of "user" in this context, there is no general way to distinguish a bot from a non-bot user in full generality, and several ways in which non-bot users and bots could effectively share accounts so it would all need reported regardless. Note that the above is not considering any actions taken with regard to contributing users, which are by comparison quite rare, though one could consider locking a topic to be a "disciplinary action" which would require still more Council bugs, warnings regarding borderline behavior would require still more Council bugs. As it stands, disciplinary actions are handled per medium and channel, with appeals going first to those with direct authority over that medium or channel, then to ComRel, then the Council. This is simple, consistent, and most of all it is on the whole effective; all while minimizing the amount of make work. If there is meant to be an implicit argument that this is somehow insufficiently documented, by all means make that point, ask people to document things more pervasively, do not discard a working system because someone could not be bothered to read the documentation. [1] http://www.stopforumspam.com/forum/index.php