Le dimanche, 23 février 2020, 18.29:32 h CET Felix Lechner a écrit : > > Do you really expect such a mechanism to be needed? > > Moderators have opinions. The mailing lists are our primary public > forum. Feelings may run higher, and accusations may abound. It always seemed obvious; but for moderation to work while still standing for our values, we need: - traceability (which moderator took which decision, when) - accountability (the moderators need to decide based on clear, published guidelines, that clarify which categories to moderate, and how) - transparency (allow senders to know if their mail is waiting for moderation, or was rejected; also probably publish numbers) - feedback (senders need to know _why_ their email was delayed or rejected, and be pointed to…) - a clear appeal process (super-moderators? review by 3 other moderators?) The point of an efficient moderation is to rule fast on clear categories: - allow obviously good email in; - reject (or hold) obviously bad email. … and to take the time needed for the non-obvious cases could require 2-3, or $n opinions. Email is by definition asynchronous, and some large delays (up to, say, 24h) are IMHO clearly acceptable for our large, central lists such as -devel or - project, if one's email address is not already known to send legitimate content. -- OdyX
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.