From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IHV2O-0001uP-5G for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:36:08 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l751ZuEV004197; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 01:35:56 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l751ZtTR004192 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 01:35:55 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9ED565517 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 01:35:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: 0.942 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.942 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.559, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.5] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FuQ2e13wLW0l for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 01:35:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04F5A65381 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 01:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IHV22-0005c7-QY for gentoo-project@gentoo.org; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 03:35:46 +0200 Received: from 82.153.194.134 ([82.153.194.134]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 03:35:46 +0200 Received: from slong by 82.153.194.134 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 03:35:46 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-project] Proposal to ease flames Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:36:02 +0100 Message-ID: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.153.194.134 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: abe29805-8069-4b3e-9d78-ed476ec92894 X-Archives-Hash: 6c2e32b1284eaff13f72b037d29b5f52 I was thinking about the recent discussion re flames and firefighting on the dev m-l. One thing that occurred to me, as a user who has been on one side of those, is that it would have been better if I had never been able to post more than two posts in a day. (I mean this for the technical dev m-l, not project.) That's plenty for me to say "I think that's out of order" and to answer a response, but it also means I can't get too emotional if I get flamed by a stressed-out dev. After all, since the proctors have gone, there's no one to respond in anything like mail-list time in the (admittedly unlikely ;) event that there is another flamewar on the dev list and more cogently no-one to mute a troublesome user (in real time). A dev who is consistently anti-social (especially out of the blue when they should just ignore the thread) can be dealt with by devrel. (And have been in the past.) If the user is making a valid point, surely others will post in support, and in any event they can respond the next day. That would minimise the chance that a user unused to the rough-and-tumble of dev behaviour would react in a hostile manner, and can in no way be seen as censorship of the user community, at least to my mind. What do you think? -- gentoo-project@gentoo.org mailing list