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 74B68139694 for ; Thu, 11 May 2017 10:52:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 72E8F21C060; Thu, 11 May 2017 10:52:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-x234.google.com (mail-yw0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::234]) (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 4381021C038 for ; Thu, 11 May 2017 10:52:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-x234.google.com with SMTP id l135so10563476ywb.2 for ; Thu, 11 May 2017 03:52:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=jlQpwackMR2zdYnLTSMC4+/+VpI/ERelSdkTR0/6w3E=; b=n/mrSHR6BiuDlfb8gSGeNYh1DuLFWoNLp8CCK/oUpPs2lEfqJlistyUZ1Gvy2jjwqr rWw1gg5SEGSU4amoUch7uhqn8huR4N/s4U/bPhEg6UmbI1AP/KCO0Krr5sIAvDvE7Fl+ USpQt4GATWmqCQIj0KguIPpqD1Lp/PIXDxPiE1ScRMDtCq3g2Cx7tAsE9I9h9Zf+CQUY jPOcnF1VhK+qaLcRnnJ8CffmoGNUGe1JqqZMim3X2P9hqQr3PFWVa53hEdk80Df+vn8I PnujPUGZmyM95xavm5Yk18LNKjfjNV5IgroEHQtzXMevZOKMrMLmZ6H+jjBDijG9/S0t Rb7Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=jlQpwackMR2zdYnLTSMC4+/+VpI/ERelSdkTR0/6w3E=; b=KxkwrWs/HCQ+Jxh8s0nEYk8rVevDrgGmkJNllZb06hkVZQGut42qwkE/qdN0Ut3dIB qCd6RmFn0bhzo5hBrsa3PRKuOtn6OFNzMs48fwYdWaZ+q0lav56ArHYRmDV4uQC9XeTp acppbJ8cY13ffPKh9SIwN4JE3bYpDQKD1eVVmqI4vh+kRPGQHILHrIgjnqbJ8wlkB5pN GUTQ77uDgJaZDcruex926aXhR5uDOMg+3inBU4uh7QFePWASw8N7zenlk+nZW35Nhit3 RijnZFLEzKYsmO9JbiPORuKajNEKmNX8KcFoif2hhC125Q9GdPJNQT5jFaeW6ErBDwnZ An2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCt0Ji4+ykATc3cJbwJmOeCeV/o/tlpZabJF225tympF7IUuGsv xskbUj976ijQgscu9f1HyQ9HzgX389Li X-Received: by 10.129.2.2 with SMTP id 2mr8465345ywc.23.1494499969228; Thu, 11 May 2017 03:52:49 -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 Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.129.131.8 with HTTP; Thu, 11 May 2017 03:52:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170511220840.5700e21d@katipo2.lan> References: <0ac908a7-9875-f629-fa0c-0c85945e1185@gentoo.org> <871srvx3o8.fsf@kestrel.kyomu.43-1.org> <20170511220840.5700e21d@katipo2.lan> From: Rich Freeman Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 06:52:48 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: O7vW4-tFjfIs6-aIlyClYylFSg4 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Items for Council Agenda, May 14 To: gentoo-project Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 6f40f2c4-dc1f-40ed-b4d9-fc5b0a6e6df4 X-Archives-Hash: 14e8d8faa3f02b4c606849e8340c3f2c On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > But for regulating misbehaving operators who can trivially find a new > identity to hide behind, these tools as presented so far seem a bit > toothless. > > Unless this proposal suggests that all new senders are themselves, > defacto-censored. > ++ As many have pointed out, people can just get around bans by creating new identities. That won't be an issue for devs, but certainly it is an issue for non-devs. I don't really see the point in doing moderation unless it is before-the-fact. We'll just be playing whack-a-mole and making people upset without actually changing anything. Yes, doing it before the fact has both philosophical and practical challenges. We need to accept those and make a decision one way or the other. I think this is one of those cases where either decision is better than compromise. If we don't have the manpower to moderate posts by non-devs then we shouldn't moderate them at all. If we consider it against our values then we shouldn't. I also think we need to be consistent. If we're going to moderate, then do it everywhere, or at least be prepared to do it everywhere without further debate when problems arise. If we're not going to moderate, then we should just embrace the results. I think that having more moderation on some forums than others just creates the inevitable complaint on one forum when somebody can't post on another, and we have no principle to fall back on. > But if we set up a system where new contributors are defacto-censored, ... > that's not really the sort of Gentoo I want to be part of. Honestly, I think we'll lose people either way (and we probably have been losing them for years with the status quo). Certainly they'll be different people, but there isn't really any hard data one way or the other as to which will have the larger impact. Trying to collect some kind of data around preferences might help here, though I'm not sure it will make anybody more/less happy with the outcome either way. -- Rich