This was a pull request merged several months ago. You asked for clarification about where the change set was, and I told you where it was.
You appear to be laboring under the misunderstanding that you wield veto power over discussions which have already occurred. You do not. We're done here. -- Emma On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Philippe Cloutier <chea...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
