Hi Emma, 2017-10-09 4:03 GMT-04:00 Emma Humphries <e...@mozilla.com>: > > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Filipus Klutiero via governance > <governance@lists.mozilla.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Emma, >> >> On 2017-01-05 03:15, Emma Humphries wrote: >>> >>> The motivation is that while we have a mechanism (comment tagging) for >>> marking abusive, spam, and off-topic comments, which, in some cases, will >>> result in suspending an account automatically, I wanted to be more >>> deliberate about responding to these. >> >> >> Sorry, you want to be more deliberate about responding to what? > > > More deliberate in responding to comments tagged as abuse, spam, or > off-topic.
Ah, I understand. Sorry, thank you. > >> >> The pull request you linked to shows 60 commits... I tried checking the >> overall result by using the "Files changed" tab, but that only shows 1 file >> changed, with 1 line removed. Am I doing something wrong or is there an >> issue? > > > It's an artifact of the merge. The edits were incorporated as > https://github.com/mozilla-bteam/bmo/commit/1cb4e01a265c94284a08b8df6555b6932fc37b73#diff-c34b7ae908d338d52cde89fa58422e24 Ah, the changes can indeed be seen that way. Thanks, here are the regressions I spotted. + <td colspan="2"> + I have read <a href="page.cgi?id=etiquette.html">[% terms.Bugzilla %] Etiquette</a> + and the <a href="https://www.mozilla.org/about/governance/policies/participation/";>Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines</a> + and agree to abide by them. + <input type="checkbox" id="etiquette" value="agreed"> + </td> I contextually oppose this. I do not oppose requiring contributors to read some guidelines, but the Bugzilla Etiquette would need a serious review before being given such exposure and making reception of issue reports dependent on its acceptance by reporters. + It is our intention that [% terms.Bugzilla %] remain a useful tool for reporting + and commenting on [% terms.bugs %], feature requests, and tasks for the Mozilla community. English is not my native language, but I guess "remain" should read "remains" (third person singular). + In addition, your participation on this site is also subject to the + <a href="https://www.mozilla.org/about/governance/policies/participation";>Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines</a>. This sounds redundant ("In addition", "also"). + <span class="heading">No pointless comments</span>. + Limit comments on a [% terms.bug %] to information which will help with + resolving it. Unless requested, additional "I see this too" or "It works for me" + comments are unnecessary. It is unclear what existing comments "additional" refers to. I realize that the current version is already imperfect, but this is even more problematic. + <span class="heading">No whining about decisions</span>. + If another project contributor has marked a [% terms.bug %] as INVALID, then it is + invalid. Filing another duplicate of it does not change this. Unless you have + further evidence to support reopening a [% terms.bug %], do not post a comment + arguing that a [% terms.bug %] resolved as INVALID or WONTFIX should be reopened. This is by far the most important regression. Let me first describe the proposed new paragraph. There are 2 issues, one with content and one with phrasing. In terms of content, that is pretty much like saying that existing contributors cannot be wrong, only the prospect. I have seen many thousands of issue reports in numerous projects, and I would estimate that at least 5% of those flagged as invalid are valid. This problem seems to be even worst at Mozilla. But phrasing makes this paragraph not merely ridiculous, but insulting. The verb "to whine" has a negative connotation. Using this phrasing would be calling those who report erroneous manipulations "whiners". Secondarily, the meaning of "further" is unclear. And there is even an issue with scope. The heading discusses unspecified decisions, so presumably decisions in general. The first sentence implies the decisions are marking reports as invalid. But then the last sentence talks about WONTFIX. I strongly recommend to scrap this paragraph. If there is concern about a high number of problematic comments, please start by specifying which. Now, I understand that this paragraph is close to a previous version, and it doesn't make sense for the previous version to refer specifically to a "respected project contributor", but fixing that makes the paragraph even less acceptable. + If you think a comment may violate our policies, but your are not sure how to mark it, + tag the comment <b><i>admin</i></b> and a moderator will review it. s/your are/you are/ +<p> + If a [% terms.bug %]'s short-description, whiteboard tags, attachments, + or user-created content other than comments that violate the + <a href="https://www.mozilla.org/about/governance/policies/participation/";>Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines</a> + or [% terms.Bugzilla %] Etiquette, please describe the issue + in a comment and tag that comment <b><i>admin</i></b>. +</p> Something is wrong at the beginning of this sentence. + <li> + Send email to <a href="mailto:bmo-m...@mozilla.com";>bmo-m...@mozilla.com</a> with + the [% terms.bug %] number and a short description of the situation. + </li> There should also be a link to the archives of that list (as with the other reference added). + If you have IRC you may also contact the on-duty staff member in the #bmo channel on irc.mozilla.org. IRC is a protocol. "having IRC" sounds quite vulgar. I'd suggest just dropping the "if". _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
