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 904DE139694 for ; Thu, 11 May 2017 09:17:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A810421C060; Thu, 11 May 2017 09:17:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt0-x231.google.com (mail-qt0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::231]) (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 6E2D621C038 for ; Thu, 11 May 2017 09:17:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-x231.google.com with SMTP id j29so12078549qtj.1 for ; Thu, 11 May 2017 02:17:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wWyLGom2jjyv1QuR6uUFGpWfA659g8yjRjszt4I7l+4=; b=N8pse8YCLOq/Lw3IyiaRuTMT0cgjeIX1pS4IFUoRdleXhu5SPGYgNK+v10ah2F/Pt4 05x2GmOUd3CsHGgqzo9utc0EGwIxWHdvgtnSFJgC50rqwrNTO8BVkyT3GAd84tjMxibt RPgk6g19KnWU7205hJecYEs7G7gUULRucZSmkJc10PaG3FlbDDIg9lUpqO6Hq414bWeU +tJCC5Eqyu4eyp5sXXGGf15ZX7ztTYP0jYam7ILsg4mvnKKqnS8hMbGEVs/mBBIHLw6H F8AOWFmwYJa/2OZvEfQA6n47L5qDbKDrfDQLXg5LVNu4HImOS1JVSWS3J9Ak+hbK5MY7 kD5w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wWyLGom2jjyv1QuR6uUFGpWfA659g8yjRjszt4I7l+4=; b=dFlNFa4qEQB4kW/8h10ubaFC3YyBX3GjWa11JPsPV0UI7HMh1Z/K7PtrFOwMpOY+4/ RjwxeKRtipamhxeyqFcbqi/XMzpUqtXQOr6EYmsywBJEZtrp8wHAtBN/9VViE762J8En e1UG5huBv06CRCO/8s2meH9+ppxKwsgPWac6DGR0PWWi1/acIu8W//wwpRV7BmR9uHO9 2coTxcMx+OYl6QhJylHKFLPNau/SDhtMYajMlm4PAjzUHMzKU8A/JNRVOsPqqMk8GlcF 9zQ7NFmjj2JuA7UKivrRe0DMED7uqKlWaM3LALux+F37tjEsuJrprS7OiEJq+3ILmk4I uFQw== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAJvpCaeBq62kF7kmrDWxX+Z+T+oGEjnES6MF2A+W5Ki/NposwE zK340QffITvgacKqLOcBRWlVb+Ok0w== X-Received: by 10.200.46.239 with SMTP id i44mr2646351qta.89.1494494247613; Thu, 11 May 2017 02:17:27 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 10.12.182.8 with HTTP; Thu, 11 May 2017 02:16:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1494489749.1223.6.camel@gentoo.org> References: <0ac908a7-9875-f629-fa0c-0c85945e1185@gentoo.org> <871srvx3o8.fsf@kestrel.kyomu.43-1.org> <1494489749.1223.6.camel@gentoo.org> From: Raymond Jennings Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 02:16:47 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Items for Council Agenda, May 14 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: council@gentoo.org, Matthias Maier Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113781e8bf7ffe054f3c0e4a X-Archives-Salt: f9be1b1c-fa01-42bd-b76f-3e0f829cff5e X-Archives-Hash: 49ec32f4a088bc1ed1cf1e9d76ff1764 --001a113781e8bf7ffe054f3c0e4a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If I can throw my two cents in, I'd like to suggest, for the purposes of whitelisting, that we consider the pros and cons of allowing a message from X, where X is some individual. The list of things X including, but not being limited to the following: 1. A spambot 2. An abusive commenter 3. A completely new person with benign intentions 4. A gentoo developer/staff member 5. A gentoo user 6. Anyone who has proven themselves benign through a history of non abusive comments. 7. Cases 3 through 6 where such sender's email account has been compromised (presumably on a temporary basis) by a person of cases 1 or 2. Preemptively blocking someone of case 3 or 5, for example, out of fear that they may be cases 1 or 2, may be detrimental to Gentoo's openness. I find it likely that there may be plenty of people in cases 3, 5, or 6, who are not in case 4 and who it might cause harm to the project if they were preemptively moderated. In my very humble opinion, only cases 1 or 2 need dumped into the "ignore all further postings" blacklist, and once an unknown new sender has been vetted or proven themselves fit they should be provisionally whitelisted so as not to burden the moderation team. Finally I'd like to advise flexibility, both in terms of how decisions are made and also when they are made. Except in cases of blatant abuse or spam, a person's helpful or harmful influence is a highly subjective judgement that may even vary over time given the changing attitudes of the person in question. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny = wrote: > On czw, 2017-05-11 at 03:52 -0400, NP-Hardass wrote: > > On 05/11/2017 03:17 AM, Matthias Maier wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017, at 12:00 CDT, "Anthony G. Basile" < > blueness@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > The Gentoo Council will be meeting in two weeks. If anyone has any > > > > issues we need to discuss, please let me know and I'll put it on th= e > > > > agenda. Thanks. > > > > > > I would like to make a last minute proposal. > > > > > > Proposal: > > > > > > I ask the council to establish a procedure / team to moderate the > > > gentoo-project@ and gentoo-dev@ mailing lists: > > > > > > - In general the amount of moderation shall as minimal as possible > > > (in particular developers and long-time contributors > > > unconditionally green-lighted), > > > - but for non-developers abusing the mailing lists for their own > > > agenda their contributions shall be moderated. > > > - Similar to irc operators there shall be a decicated moderator te= am > > > to ensure a quick and timely response. > > > - The moderator team shall be different from council members, and > > > ideally also comrel, such that these groups can act as a check a= nd > > > balance. > > > > > > Rationale: > > > > > > The gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists nowadays serve > > > an important role for Gentoo development (e.g. mandatory > announcement, > > > RFCs, PATCH reviews). This function is currently severly impeded du= e > > > to the high level of noise and unrelated personal agenda [1]. > > > > > > Best, > > > Matthias > > > > > > [1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/ > > > > > > > I'm going to second the proposal. > > > > As an aside, in considering this, I'd like a priori moderation > > (whitelist+manual passthrough) to be weighed against a posteriori > > moderation (automatic passthrough+reactionary blacklisting), assuming > > that both are feasible with our ML system. > > > > The difference between the two is that the former causes 'every non-dev > is moderated, I guess that's fair' and the latter causes 'how dare you > restrict my freedom of speech, you bastards, I'm the most important > Gentoo developer since Daniel Robbins, you silly lives mean nothing > compared to me, you wouldn't have been born if it was not for me...!' > > > -- > Best regards, > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny > --001a113781e8bf7ffe054f3c0e4a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If I can throw my two cents in, I'd like to suggest, f= or the purposes of whitelisting, that we consider the pros and cons of allo= wing a message from X, where X is some individual.

The list of thin= gs X including, but not being limited to the following:

1.=C2=A0 A spambot
2.=C2=A0 An abusive commenter
= 3.=C2=A0 A completely new person with benign intentions
4.=C2=A0 = A gentoo developer/staff member
5.=C2=A0 A gentoo user
= 6.=C2=A0 Anyone who has proven themselves benign through a history of non a= busive comments.
7.=C2=A0 Cases 3 through 6 where such sender'= ;s email account has been compromised (presumably on a temporary basis) by = a person of cases 1 or 2.

Preemptively blocking so= meone of case 3 or 5, for example, out of fear that they may be cases 1 or = 2, may be detrimental to Gentoo's openness.

I = find it likely that there may be plenty of people in cases 3, 5, or 6, who = are not in case 4 and who it might cause harm to the project if they were p= reemptively moderated.

In my very humble opinion, = only cases 1 or 2 need dumped into the "ignore all further postings&qu= ot; blacklist, and once an unknown new sender has been vetted or proven the= mselves fit they should be provisionally whitelisted so as not to burden th= e moderation team.

Finally I'd like to advise = flexibility, both in terms of how decisions are made and also when they are= made.=C2=A0 Except in cases of blatant abuse or spam, a person's helpf= ul or harmful influence is a highly subjective judgement that may even vary= over time given the changing attitudes of the person in question.



On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <= mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
<= div class=3D"HOEnZb">
On czw, 2017-05-11 at 03:52 -0400, N= P-Hardass wrote:
> On 05/11/2017 03:17 AM, Matthias Maier wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017, at 12:00 CDT, "Anthony G. Basile"= <blueness@gentoo.org> wro= te:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > The Gentoo Council will be meeting in two weeks.=C2=A0 If an= yone has any
> > > issues we need to discuss, please let me know and I'll p= ut it on the
> > > agenda.=C2=A0 Thanks.
> >
> > I would like to make a last minute proposal.
> >
> > Proposal:
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0I ask the council to establish a procedure / team to = moderate the
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0gentoo-project@ and gentoo-dev@ mailing lists:
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - In general the amount of moderation shall as minim= al as possible
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (in particular developers and long-time contr= ibutors
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 unconditionally green-lighted),
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - but for non-developers abusing the mailing lists f= or their own
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 agenda their contributions shall be moderated= .
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Similar to irc operators there shall be a decicate= d moderator team
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 to ensure a quick and timely response.
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - The moderator team shall be different from council= members, and
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ideally also comrel, such that these groups c= an act as a check and
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 balance.
> >
> > Rationale:
> >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0The gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists now= adays serve
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0an important role for Gentoo development (e.g. mandat= ory announcement,
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0RFCs, PATCH reviews). This function is currently seve= rly impeded due
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0to the high level of noise and unrelated personal age= nda [1].
> >
> > Best,
> > Matthias
> >
> > [1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-p= roject/
> >
>
> I'm going to second the proposal.
>
> As an aside, in considering this, I'd like a priori moderation
> (whitelist+manual passthrough) to be weighed against a posteriori
> moderation (automatic passthrough+reactionary blacklisting), assuming<= br> > that both are feasible with our ML system.
>

The difference between the two is that the former causes 'e= very non-dev
is moderated, I guess that's fair' and the latter causes 'how d= are you
restrict my freedom of speech, you bastards, I'm the most important
Gentoo developer since Daniel Robbins, you silly lives mean nothing
compared to me, you wouldn't have been born if it was not for me...!= 9;


--
Best regards,
Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny

--001a113781e8bf7ffe054f3c0e4a--