On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 1:27 PM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Naomi, > > I would hope it would be possible to remove an individual from any ML. I am > not proposing that we tolerate or moderate unhelpful behavior. I am > proposing that we refine appropriate ways of stopping unwanted behavior by > eventually figuring out the best response that is non-combative, takes the > high road, yet shuts down unhelpful discussions. That would be the > "development" of a "tool" that folks on other lists can use to manage > unhelpful behavior. Creating more MLs is not a solution other projects can > use as easily. > > That said, ML's are cheap, so no objections to giving it a try.
It is indeed possible, and it is even possible to restrict mailing lists to subscribers only and to moderate subscription requests. I will say that the correct architecture of mailing lists can significantly reduce interference. In particular, if you have a group focused on deliverables (like I hope and expect this one will be!) and the dev list is at least moderately busy, often ignoring unhelpful input is successful in that you don't need to go the next step. I've even seen strategies used like directing update notifications from JIRA and wikis and other places to the dev list to emphasize that this is a place where work is getting done. I can name a few places at the ASF where such an approach is not effective. Generally those groups don't have clear deliverables. > My 2 cents, > -Alex - Sam Ruby > On 5/17/19, 9:59 AM, "Naomi Slater" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've thought a bit more about Ross's proposal, and I think I've come to > the > conclusion that I prefer: > > [email protected] - for questions and answers, debate, etc > [email protected] - a place for this committee to get work done > > I say this because there seems to be some consensus that we want to start > building a FAQ and a list of resources. and it makes sense to me that that > activity is being driven by the discussions on a list under our direct > purview (i.e. [email protected]) > > Alex, if someone tries to derail work being done on diversity-dev@ with > "debate" and requests to be educated or "convinced", and they refuse to > move that stuff to diversity@, we can, quite simply, remove them from the > list > > removing troublesome people from diversity-dev@ takes a lot less energy > than trying to tolerate/moderate their presence > > On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 18:42, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I guess I don't understand how telling someone to go to a different list > > will work regardless of which list we tell them to go to. That's why I > > offered that we need to practice and hone our management of certain > types > > of posts instead. > > > > My 2 cents, > > -Alex > > > > On 5/17/19, 8:54 AM, "Naomi Slater" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 16:37, Ross Gardler > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On the topic of another list, why wouldn't "off-topic" be comdev? > > > > > > I think most, if not all, of us are in there. If we take the > > > responsibility of ensuring diversity and welcoming in that list > then > > we are > > > starting to spread by example. > > > > > > > interesting proposal! what do others think? > > > > also: do we need buy-in from the ComDev PMC? I would like to > formalize > > this > > setup in our community guidelines (see other thread) > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
