[ re-ordering the quoted text, anticipating your reply to my post ]
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 04:35:43PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The goal is not (necessarily to) filter the messages that we want to
> see or not, the goal is to give feedback to contributors so that
> they know if their messages were in line or not with what people
> expect on the list. The hope is that contributors will try to avoid
> doing the same mistake once that many people pointed it out
> explicitely.
Well, I think both are reasonable goals, aren't they?
But you correctly spotted that I completely overlooked the "feedback
to posters" goal (BTW, was it clear in the original proposal?), while
now that you make me think about it I agree it is possibly more
interesting.
> Various remarks:
> - making data available doesn't mean that people will regularly follow
> them, there must be a mechanism to inform the contributor when a threshold
> has been reached so that they are informed that many people found their
> messages objectionable
Agreed, even though I wouldn't like starting to mail people about
their feedback scores; I'm quite sure many people would find that
unacceptable. Eventually, it can be integrated behind db.debian.org,
but here we are starting to drift towards the "let's discuss the
technical bits", while it is definitely too early.
> - classifying in good/bad is not enough, we need to be able to express
> what we find incorrect (personal attacks, too many replies that repeat
> the same thing, improper vocabulary, …)
I disagree. As a figure good/bad is enough, though for sure you want
to enable people to comment *why* the gave a given score. Given that
the suggested mechanism is mail forwarding it is quite easy to achieve
that a-la BTS.
> - having such a mechanism not only helps posters to be aware that their
> messages are causing troubles, it also helps newcomers to better
> identify the problematic contributors and they might avoid starting an
> argument with them.
MMMMmmmmm, this is risky and an important point: do we want the
information to be publicly available or not? The initial proposal
seemed to be more oriented to scoring single posts, while here you are
kind of inheriting a score on the poster from his posts. They are two
quite different approaches.
> - mutt macros can be written to make it handy for us to quickly give
> feedback
ACK.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature