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 52089139694 for ; Thu, 11 May 2017 15:03:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5236221C039; Thu, 11 May 2017 15:03:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-it0-x242.google.com (mail-it0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::242]) (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 26C9721C028 for ; Thu, 11 May 2017 15:03:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-x242.google.com with SMTP id c26so3373886itd.1 for ; Thu, 11 May 2017 08:03:49 -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; bh=Ptq9QNLpbAQWhnzEULW1ptg20qf8OfEKX1wwuVfE0YY=; b=uuygDXJUagbEylmxgIhLJRq0tgtw8NXdVmBOF9uAUKKV9yQtgSs0T+ILsv9MoVGF0G kRdSeqNTXeIMV5Bo0xHH4FlrC23fleJ6kMO6JcAOxvj3+upAO47bJ7PTlRegaebgrIpK qPhuONGHVIqRXR0BOleYg4LhQ28OlSYwBX9VtBW/A6Q1ocYWFvFMYBJO39TqVQmEv3Cw 4MZyi2dQ6JctZmcihT+dYYb4RXTX1V44dIWC2Uk8h+M/CD7sM+XRSBJA9Iz+2fr1TCSX eANm8gxPRDgcc3+ds9P6F5xLbsfcANfFjbeigjryznGq9DVkBTs2Lio0dnJBDE/Kgsee 5+rA== 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; bh=Ptq9QNLpbAQWhnzEULW1ptg20qf8OfEKX1wwuVfE0YY=; b=YwX5ApP5n7Xme6rj32xPnyrY7dnehRA2P7vzVFbOnyPqMIS6nq66QQ/k5jn4DLZYdx CQgF6Bc2vzCc/WU5cE2MmLCirUM/3bucUUH7MYAg3RaaT1zXhWWwXDFvAGnTo3zk0+Yy NDgQPNdLyRbdWrGnKpPuj3XhJEFq67X42geLqYhcusC4K8DV3CxF7lH6kPgcL2uNGhAp gv3D8ViEPaIKKlg02vs/wGoDCPuo+kQoKbCKqVi4ayxBCq2lrtF8/iD4ySffh+DGG4xt EbIErF/+R7NbakvDHTCR4aR3BGxMAlb5ZfhcvUlUuNsCvelkO7chyq7B62K/BCbPTEfT 2XbQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBHB/zB5V7NiZ31aHjTKYzwSwPpwjNMIxaI2T0yhlk3tqnQZsRn Z1TeI8nv9Xm65l0G4qZG/4iD9gq4FA== X-Received: by 10.36.78.200 with SMTP id r191mr6657387ita.84.1494515029108; Thu, 11 May 2017 08:03:49 -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 Received: by 10.79.14.86 with HTTP; Thu, 11 May 2017 08:03:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0ac908a7-9875-f629-fa0c-0c85945e1185@gentoo.org> <871srvx3o8.fsf@kestrel.kyomu.43-1.org> <20170511220840.5700e21d@katipo2.lan> From: Gregory Woodbury Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:03:48 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Items for Council Agenda, May 14 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: dd4ea59b-f0d4-4175-8e08-891c1eba5537 X-Archives-Hash: 52c3960d83d95b0b7afaf55404652197 On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 6:52 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: ... >> Unless this proposal suggests that all new senders are themselves, >> defacto-censored. >> ... > 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. > ... > 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. There are folks I know that use Gentoo but don't get involved in discussions or as developers because of the "politics and annoyance" of the procedures and policies that currently prevail. I occasionally present a "News from Gentoo" mini-talk at various tech meetings in this part of NC [RTP] that filter out a lot of chatter and focus on the technical issues; and the interest is still quite high by users, as Gentoo is their development platform. If there is a perceived lack of people to do the job of moderating, I might suggest that insisting the moderators have to be developers may be too high a qualification for getting people involved. I hesitate proposing that another class of involvement be implemented -- that of some sort of 'certified user' of 'technician' -- but it has been successful for some other projects. This might expand the amount of trust in the project, both within and without the system. Certainly, the vetting process should be at a lower level than the 'developer' title requires. Finally, perhaps a "robo-moderator" system could be implemented that would know the trusted posters (developers + others) and refer new posters to moderators by an email alert so that there is minimal delay in looking at the new poster's material. This worked well on several USENET groups for a long time. [James Levine wrote one that could be easily adapted.] -- G.Wolfe Woodbury redwolfe@gmail.com