Hi Emma, 2017-10-23 3:59 GMT-04:00 Emma Humphries <e...@mozilla.com>: > 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.
Right. You asked for feedback about your proposal. I provided my feedback. > You appear to be laboring under the misunderstanding that you wield veto > power over discussions which have already occurred. I am not sure what that means, but if that is as bad as it sounds, feel free to react when that occurs. > You do not. > > We're done here. Hum, I guess I for one am indeed done answering your requests. > > -- 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
