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 3AB0E1382C5 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:31:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 17FBAE08BD; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:31:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF3ECE088C for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:31:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 12:31:47 -0500 From: Aaron Bauman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: Shutting down the Off the Wall (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items ...) Message-ID: References: <20201130164650.j46wjcxzethfn6qp@hydra> <5284753.ZASKD2KPVS@farino> 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vOwOppB0FGu1rI1w" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Archives-Salt: 233f6ed6-404d-4d63-9f4e-3d2740efcfc5 X-Archives-Hash: 0cb31ccdecef23620ba52e45b44fc1c1 --vOwOppB0FGu1rI1w Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 08:16:16AM -0800, Alec Warner wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 6:58 AM Aaron Bauman wrote: >=20 > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:07:53PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote: > It's my (subjective) belief that a good faith discussion with forum-mods > My point is more like "this belief that everyone dislikes OTW" is poorly > measured and poorly falsifiable. This point was also made on -core where = it > was suggested to have a better basis for the decision to avoid > flip-flopping. If you end up with a rational basis then different people > can examine the situation and draw the same conclusions. >=20 > Is the CoC a rational basis? I mean there is definitely subjectivity to i= t, > but I think it's clearly more of a shared belief than "I think X is toxic" > and there are fairly clear guidelines in the CoC today (and we could add > more.) We could ask questions like (quoting the CoC's unacceptable behavi= or > here): > Does this activity happen on OTW? >=20 > Yeah I don't want to live in a world where I have to "do gentoo" in every > channel all the time. You and I have had numerous discussions of non-gent= oo > topics on IRC, but I don't see anyone advocating for deleting IRC as a > medium. People talk about offtopic stuff. It's a thing that will happen a= nd > will continue to happen..basically forever. So this policy where we must > only allow Gentoo topics is...I think it's a bit inane. > The reasoning is simply based on the fact that it is a hosted forum. Paid for by others who donate to us in good faith to support the distribution. If this entails such discussions as seen in OTW... I would be highly surprised. So, the question is quite a rhetorical one. > It's a question of scope. Are we deleting "OTW" or "OTW and polish OTW." >=20 Is that what it is? I don't read/speak Polish. > > > I'm refuting an argument. The argument is that the OTW forum has 0 value. > I'm suggesting the value is non-zero. > Sure, but you are refuting it by stating that OTW does play a role and that role is to house all the things that don't belong. >=20 > > > > Maybe our donors are objective too, but I doubt they would be happy with > > such a situation. > > >=20 > Again though, is this a real argument or a boogeyman argument? "Our donors > might be unhappy with X, so you should stop doing X." > So I'd ask...are our donors unhappy? If they are, then sure, we can take > action! But I suspect the answer is "we have no idea what they think about > the forums, or OTW" and so again, it's not a great basis for action. > If you want to attempt quantifying the matter go for it. It is mostly a rhetorical question. If you cannot rationalize this on your own there is a larger concern. Let's use an example here... if I donate to "Alec for President" and you go spend all my donations on ice cream. I may be a little angry, no? This is not the "good faith" I would be assuming by donating. I don't think we need to attempt to quantify this. Any amount spent or donated resource used is wrong. There is a purpose to my donations which is to support the distro. Not make= a cozy forum for people to rant/rave on about Hitler, politics, and conspiracy theories. It is antithetical. I suppose your next suggestion would be a document stating what donations should/could/would be used for? --=20 Cheers, Aaron --vOwOppB0FGu1rI1w Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEyBAABCAAdFiEEmv7M5qd5RX+UB+cwV6vTrTwY1fAFAl/GfgMACgkQV6vTrTwY 1fAduQf3XpHJYSlR4gDKF1eX33MEbVfSMg46oZ8uXFX/6Dbi5CS1rbiBEIz0zzkZ 3UKhpSa0NLkQCCs86EPFf187svCBzLPw3W+PQk4V0a+2xKEdiF4IuYwa+jUrNHp9 qM9AeXLp87RWu572Vn+xJr52E+UI2oa/c7ElYRyLFmqPONjE3whOd1uAQ+kWqBwV Au55xxxBiAXaQQhKuiuUs0KvHtB/KkeCwIxBjTVVjMeXpWBo9p+evVXi3XpJyN+O cI4BtdRT6UktIB5E4eI1MjNuaE3lsEc52jdHJ15Up2zMqO7J+RhdJpk3qDz/P5Uu iYHxbM8rNXEEpE37u97stVaMlslT =vmgV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vOwOppB0FGu1rI1w--