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.
--
OdyXAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.