[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian, lists and discrimination

[MJ Ray]
> I look forward to seeing threads from -women redirected to -project,
> -newmaint and others, but it's not happened much yet AFAICT.

I look forward to it too.  I don't think anyone wants to create a
private enclave whose members never venture into the rest of Debian.
If certain people choose to do that, we won't stop them, but that's
truly not the point.

> Is any discussion involving women ever off-topic for -women,
> actually?

Actually, yes.  The list topic is more specific than just "involving
women" or "touching on both women and Debian".  The focus of the list,
and the project, is to encourage women to get involved with Debian - in
any of the myriad ways one *can* get involved with Debian.  As a
necessary prerequisite, a current hot topic is organising efforts to
build up debian-women into a proper subproject at all - that is,
defining goals, working on the web site, etc.  However, in general,
things that don't reach toward the above-stated goal are not really on

Note that we also feel no need to be harsh with people who post
off-topic.  List traffic isn't nearly high enough to where enforcing
such rules would bring more benefit than harm.  And really, you have to
admit, it's not like debian-devel enforces a topic either.

> Ultimately, you ended discussion by threatening to use the special
> q-bans (which give the banned person insults about "channel gods" if
> they try to speak, last time I saw one) on me, instead of explaining.
> The FAQ-stated policies of intolerance for flaming were rarely
> asserted to those who flamed and flooded during the discussion.

There was some minor flaming going on, and we did tell people to stop
it, but I saw no flooding.  Also, I shut _everybody_ up, not just you:

  <peterS> ok people, listen up.
  <peterS> this is going in circles, and has done so for like 3 hours
  <peterS> nothing new is being said.  I'm calling a halt.
  <peterS> I hate to do this, but I asked multiple times if anyone had
           anything new to add, and I see nothing new.
  <peterS> if anyone (not just slef) continues to talk about this here,
           I'm going to start issuing +q flags
  <peterS> for those new to irc, that means "you can listen but you
           can't talk"

I stand by my rationale.  It had been 4 and a half hours!  You were
away for 1 hour of that, leaving 3 and a half hours.  We were going in
circles for most of that time.  By and large, we didn't accept your
premises and you didn't accept ours, so everybody was repeating
themselves.  It was long past time to free the channel up for more
productive uses.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: