Alex Tarkovsky wrote: > By trying to silence parties involved in a disagreement you only force their > differences to manifest in less desirble ways. And when that happens, things > tend to get really ugly and it inevitably reflects back on Gentoo. > > Also, brushing things over to private email and private blogs is not always > the > answer because the issues behind these disagreements often involve (and just > as > importantly, affect) more than 2 people. Just because Daniel Robbins might now > be taking things over to his private blog doesn't mean you no longer have to > deal with the issues he attempted to have a public discussion about. > > Gentoo should provide an official venue where developers (and ex-developers > and > users) can talk out their disagreements, and under a few plainly spelled-out > and > easily enforceable guidelines designed to keep the discourse somewhat civil. > That's an interesting idea. It would be nice to have a discussion ML, which would have one simple rule enforced. Any discussion _must_ follow formal logic rules.
Ensuring that rule is followed could be done in a few different ways. One example: There would be a small group overseeing discussion, and, solely on the basis of formal logic rules, would, for example, suspend a person for a day, in case of violations. Of course, enforcement rules could be slightly more complex. i.e. 2-hour ban for any ad-hominem attack. Two warnings for logic errors, day ban for third one. Or something. These are details that need to be worked out, tested, re-hashed, etc. This would result in a list that would force people to discuss the actual issue (technical, or otherwise), as opposed to do doing all sorts of mud flinging, and, due to temporary bans, would prevent any discussion from deteriorating into flame fest. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
