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

Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7



On Monday 02 July 2007 10:03, MJ Ray wrote:
> No.  On that, I sympathise with Josip Rodin's views in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/06/msg00244.html
> that it's not a role listmasters have been wanting or expecting.
> I think we need to do something else.  For example, list-admins.
>
> I do have grave concerns about installing an all-powerful soc-ctte
> that carries big sticks, while leaving vacuums at these lower levels.

I don't think it has to be that way. IMO the solution is to make sure that 
the soc-ctte has both big _and_ little sticks.

Why not let the soc-ctte have the ability to request listmasters to set 
and revoke certain measures against certain people?
That would mean that we do not have an uncontrolled growth of smallish 
teams all dealing with social issues for individual mailing lists, but 
rather have the judgement about issues in one place. That would also have 
the advantage that one body will follow the development of issues from an 
early stage, instead of getting dragged in late.

The main issues I, as former listmaster, had with having the listmasters 
do sanctions, are:
- the listmasters have never really been given that authority be the
  project and using it would probably have resulted in flamewars about
  such sanctions instead of people responding to the warning such a
  sanction is intended to send
- it takes a significant amount of time to investigate the background of
  such requests and that is just not why I originally signed up as a
  listmaster; current listmaster team is a 'technical infrastructure' team
  rather than a community management team [1]
- it is never optimal have both the judging of issues and the implementing
  of measures with the same people

I am fairly confident that listmasters would be willing to set filters and 
such if there was a separate body authorized by the project to mediate 
and intervene in social issues.

Cheers,
FJP

[1] Which IMO is in line with the general purpose of the Debian mailing 
lists, whose primary function is to enable collaboration rather than 
creating a community.

Attachment: pgpiMf2U4Vw_V.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: