Re: Question for candidate Towns
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Anthony Towns <email@example.com> [2005.03.11.0158 +0100]:
I can't see any way of having polite reminders work without some
sort of statement from the DPL or the listmasters, probably with
the prospect of some sort of enforcement, though, personally.
And I can't see how enforcement will fly within a project such as
Ah, well, that's resolvable.
The debian-release list enforcement policy of politely asking people to
stay on topic has worked quite well and hasn't needed any augmentation.
See, for instance:
The "get 0-day NMUs right" enforcement policy of preventing people who
get it wrong from doing any more NMUs for a while was enforced once, and
didn't need to be enforced again. Javier dealt with the issue with
pretty good grace.
Enforcement of the BTS policy gets a few more flames because it only
happens when people are already being argumentative, and because it's
not a policy people are very well aware of in advance. OTOH, an argument
doesn't stop the policy being effective -- for instance the debate over
Enrico's suspension didn't stop Bug#224742 from being properly closed,
which was the point of the policy.
One of the elements which does help mitigate the negative effects of
enforcing these policies is having somewhere to redirect the discussion
to; in the cases above, that was -devel. That makes cleaning up -devel a
little harder, of course, since there's no obvious answer to the
question of where people can have offensive/off-topic/whatever
discussions instead. I expect it'll probably be necessary to have a
"debian-lists" list of some sort to take care of (civil) discussion of
how the lists are/should be managed; and I expect the question of what
we should encourage for uncivil discussion will be a difficult one. Some
of the options I can think of are "just blog about it", or "blog about
it, but don't syndicate it to Planet Debian", or "complain on IRC
instead", or "have a debian-flames list, that's moderated, and only
accepts *really* good, vicious, hurtful flames".
(I figure, if you're getting flamed on a moderated list with high
standards for flamage, you can at least console yourself with the
knowledge that you've made it into the big leagues...)
I've no idea which of those would be best, or if there're other ideas
that'd be better.