Hey!!!
I'm not going to open that bug, read all these related mailing list
discussions or waste time on whatever!
Instead, I think it's important some of you read this message:
I hope that you choose to stand still for some time, or even sit or lie
down for once.
Take a deep breath and coun
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:38 PM, kuzetsa wrote:
>
> I think this may be a misunderstanding? no? there might be some mailing
> list jargon term: "moderation" which I was unaware of:
>
Historically moderation meant having list traffic held prior to
distribution for approval from a moderator.
> I'
On 03/26/2018 09:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:19 PM, kuzetsa wrote:
>> On 03/20/2018 08:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Actually, I think it is more of a technical constraint. It is
>>> basically impossible to blacklist somebody on a mailing list, since
>>> all the
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:19 PM, kuzetsa wrote:
> On 03/20/2018 08:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, I think it is more of a technical constraint. It is
>> basically impossible to blacklist somebody on a mailing list, since
>> all they need to do is roll up a new email address.
>>
>> I
On 03/20/2018 08:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Benda Xu wrote:
>> William Hubbs writes:
>>
>>> I do feel that this decision reflects badly on us as a community and
>>> should be reversed immediately. The proper way to deal with people who
>>> have bad behavior is t
On 03/22/2018 12:38 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:30 AM, Alexander Berntsen
> wrote:
>> On 22/03/18 07:31, Benda Xu wrote:
>>> We might be able to require GPG signed email to make a post.
>> Almost definitely.
>>
>> But before bikeshedding that, it would be advisable to find
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:30 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 22/03/18 07:31, Benda Xu wrote:
>> We might be able to require GPG signed email to make a post.
> Almost definitely.
>
> But before bikeshedding that, it would be advisable to find out whether
> it would be a good idea in the first pl
On 22/03/18 07:31, Benda Xu wrote:
> We might be able to require GPG signed email to make a post.
Almost definitely.
But before bikeshedding that, it would be advisable to find out whether
it would be a good idea in the first place. Unless you want only
prospective developers to be able to contrib
Hi Rich,
Rich Freeman writes:
> Actually, I think it is more of a technical constraint. It is
> basically impossible to blacklist somebody on a mailing list, since
> all they need to do is roll up a new email address.
> I can think of various arguments for whitelisting or not whitelisting,
> b
On 22/03/18 00:33, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> Most contributions should happen via patches on b.g.o
>
Who was lamenting about the every-increasing bug queue on this Very list
recently?
And what about those 5+ year old bugs that are rotting for packages long
last-rited from the tree ?
sig
On 03/22/2018 12:56 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Rich Freeman schrieb:
>
>> Actually, I think it is more of a technical constraint. It is
>> basically impossible to blacklist somebody on a mailing list, since
>> all they need to do is roll up a new email address.
>>
>> I can think of
On 03/22/2018 12:56 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Michael Palimaka schrieb:
>> I see that in bug #650964[1] Council is pushing forward again with
>> implementing user whitelisting on this mailing list (ie. anyone that is
>> not "approved" will have their mail rejected).
>>
>> Could some
On 03/22/2018 12:56 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Kristian Fiskerstrand schrieb:
>
>> Switching to mailman might have some good merits on its own, but as I
>> understand it it isn't necessary for the proposal at hand, that can be
>> solved using access control lists in mlmmj-process?
>
Rich Freeman schrieb:
> Actually, I think it is more of a technical constraint. It is
> basically impossible to blacklist somebody on a mailing list, since
> all they need to do is roll up a new email address.
>
> I can think of various arguments for whitelisting or not whitelisting,
> but it se
Michael Palimaka schrieb:
> I see that in bug #650964[1] Council is pushing forward again with
> implementing user whitelisting on this mailing list (ie. anyone that is
> not "approved" will have their mail rejected).
>
> Could someone please explain how this doesn't directly contradict the
> core
Kristian Fiskerstrand schrieb:
> Switching to mailman might have some good merits on its own, but as I
> understand it it isn't necessary for the proposal at hand, that can be
> solved using access control lists in mlmmj-process?
I would advise caution that Council better not try to micro-manage
John Levine, author of "The Internet For Dummies," once set up a robo-moderation
process for the Usenet newsgroup soc.religion.unitarian-univ
(Unitarian Universalists).
The group, along with most of Usenet, ultimately "died" due to lack of
attention from
the moderators, who failed to curb one of th
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:55 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
>
> I can't tell, and I suspect other people can't either.
>
This is the crux of the issue. Decisions involving people issues are
made behind closed doors, which means that others are not free to
confirm for themselves whether those actions are cor
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> The community has a 'toxic people problem'
Maybe certain people who feel they are being attacked are idiots and
don't like hearing it? I can't tell, and I suspect other people can't
either.
Respectfully,
R0b0t1
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Eray Aslan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:44:48AM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> > [1] Which isn't to say that I would accept 'orders' to commit crimes, or
> > other obviously bad things.
>
> This is the crux of the problem. There are certain lines you will no
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:44:48AM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> [1] Which isn't to say that I would accept 'orders' to commit crimes, or
> other obviously bad things.
This is the crux of the problem. There are certain lines you will not
cross. I am saying that my line is different and by voicing
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Eray Aslan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:28:48AM -0500, Matthew Thode wrote:
> > While I personally do no agree with mailing list moderation infra has
> > been tasked with moving forward on it.
>
> You can always resign from infra.
>
> That was a somewhat t
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Eray Aslan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:28:48AM -0500, Matthew Thode wrote:
>> While I personally do no agree with mailing list moderation infra has
>> been tasked with moving forward on it.
>
> That was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment but not wholly. Yo
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:28:48AM -0500, Matthew Thode wrote:
> While I personally do no agree with mailing list moderation infra has
> been tasked with moving forward on it.
You can always resign from infra.
That was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment but not wholly. You cant
cop out by saying
On 20/03/2018 05:17, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> I see that in bug #650964[1] Council is pushing forward again with
> implementing user whitelisting on this mailing list (ie. anyone that is
> not "approved" will have their mail rejected).
>
> Could someone please explain how this doesn't directly co
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Benda Xu wrote:
> William Hubbs writes:
>
>> I do feel that this decision reflects badly on us as a community and
>> should be reversed immediately. The proper way to deal with people who
>> have bad behavior is to deal with them individually and not put a
>> rest
William Hubbs writes:
> I do feel that this decision reflects badly on us as a community and
> should be reversed immediately. The proper way to deal with people who
> have bad behavior is to deal with them individually and not put a
> restriction on the community that is not necessary.
I agree
On 03/20/2018 04:28 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 18-03-20 23:17:52, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> I see that in bug #650964[1] Council is pushing forward again with
>> implementing user whitelisting on this mailing list (ie. anyone that is
>> not "approved" will have their mail rejected).
>>
>> Could
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Gregory Woodbury wrote:
> On gentoo-dev list: k_f
> points out that this should have been talked about during previous
> discussion periods...
>
> It was discussed "to death" over and over, and many argued against it
> till they were blue in the face.
Indeed, it w
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 04:44:26PM +0100, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 20/03/18 13:17, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > Could someone please explain how this doesn't directly contradict the
> > core tenets of an open and inclusive community?
> It's fairly simple to produce a justification of the decis
I can understand the need to reduce meaningless spams on the dev list,
but seems like general rejection of posts from non-developers would
distract the idea of this being an open mailing list: a list that one can’t
post to effectively decays to something like a bulletin board, and obviously
the dev
On 20/03/18 13:17, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> Could someone please explain how this doesn't directly contradict the
> core tenets of an open and inclusive community?
It's fairly simple to produce a justification of the decision. I can
think of several ways of doing so. One is through an appeal to so
On 18-03-20 23:17:52, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> I see that in bug #650964[1] Council is pushing forward again with
> implementing user whitelisting on this mailing list (ie. anyone that is
> not "approved" will have their mail rejected).
>
> Could someone please explain how this doesn't directly c
On gentoo-dev list: k_f
points out that this should have been talked about during previous
discussion periods...
It was discussed "to death" over and over, and many argued against it
till they were blue in the face.
Their concerns were ignored, and Gentoo lost a lot more of the "Free
and Open" rep
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:17:52 +1100 Michael Palimaka wrote:
>I see that in bug #650964[1] Council is pushing forward again with
>implementing user whitelisting on this mailing list (ie. anyone that is
>not "approved" will have their mail rejected).
>
>Could someone please explain how this doesn't d
On 03/20/2018 01:17 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> I see that in bug #650964[1] Council is pushing forward again with
> implementing user whitelisting on this mailing list (ie. anyone that is
> not "approved" will have their mail rejected).
>
> Could someone please explain how this doesn't directly
I see that in bug #650964[1] Council is pushing forward again with
implementing user whitelisting on this mailing list (ie. anyone that is
not "approved" will have their mail rejected).
Could someone please explain how this doesn't directly contradict the
core tenets of an open and inclusive commu
37 matches
Mail list logo
