Inappropriate tone on this mailing list and requirement for governance

[Mark Haney]

See mine in line.

Brian McKee wrote:
> Good comments Mark - my comments in line
> 
> I've snipped quite a bit - please see his previous message for context
> if required!
> 
>> As Ubuntu touts itself as the 'linux for the masses', or in any case for
>> n00bs, you're going to see a /lot/ of newbie mistakes.  Poor grammar, a
>> complete lack of information on the problem, etc.  The latter engenders
>> ill-will more often than not because most people don't take criticism
>> well.  /Especially/ in this day and age where 'everyone is a victim'.
> 
> I agree completely - but I also think that's exactly what we have to do.
> First timers, non-english speakers, etc. get a *lot* of slack, and we
> try our best to *gently*
> get them used to community expectations.

I absolutely agree to your train of thought.  It was very much MY train
of thought as well, but not made particularly clear.  It does take time
and patience to deal with and teach n00bs.  Linux isn't Windows.
Windows makes the learning curve for linux a little steeper, IMHO.  I've
worked in all kinds of companies. My first was in one of the
Rehabilitation Hospitals in the US.  I had to deal with obviously
intelligent people (Doctors and Nurses) and the one thing I learned is
how to explain something without insulting their intelligence OR talking
down to them.  (And personally, having children gives you more patience
to handle those situations.)  I'm sure you can look back through the
12+years of list archives (RH and Fedora anyway) and see that I've
always tried to be helpful without being insulting in any way.  I WANT
people to learn linux.  And my comment about poor grammar was only
directed at native English speakers.  I don't expect any ESL person to
have perfect command of English.

But, there is a limit to that patience.  Continue disrespect will
probably get an angry retort (I'm Irish, it's kinda in my blood) and a
filter.  But I do make the best effort I can to be accommodating.





> 
> If that offends them, they are free to leave the community.  All are
> welcome to join, but all
> behaviour is not welcome.  The CoC is the guide, and always err on the
> side of forgiveness.

Yes, that's true.  It /should/ be understood that when you are asking
for help, that you should be kind and appreciative that someone is
willing to use their experience and time (for free) to help you with a
problem.  However, with the anonymity of the Internet, more people feel
that that is not necessary.  It's sad, but becoming more and more true.




> 
>> We can kill with kindness, and if the 'abuse' (used loosely) continues,
>> filter the sender and never deal with them again.  This should be SOP, I
>> know it is for me.
> 
> Well, the moderators would be the filters for everybody else right?  I
> have a kill file, as do many here I'm sure.
> If the majority feels that a centrally managed kill file is for the best...

Well, there may be people on the kill file that I might not be too
offended by, while others are not on the list that chap my behind.  No
matter how you slice it, it won't be perfect (obviously) and I prefer
managing my own list.  If we, as a community can't handle this
ourselves, I mean we ARE adults here and intelligent ones, surely we can
 all come up with a consensus on how to handle trolls and cretins.



> 
>> I see no real benefit to a 'committee' of etiquette police.  I much
>> prefer to manage my own filters of people and not rely on someone else's
>> judgement.  I do think, the 'regulars' need to come up with a standard
>> agreement and stick to it on how to handle trolls.  A united front from
>> the 'leaders' in this list will make a BIG difference in how trolls and
>> n00bs behave.



> 
> One of the ways to get on that grey list would be becoming the
> prototypical 'list nazi' right ? :-)
> And you are right - a list nazi is every bit as destructive to the
> community as a troll.
> The thing is, without the power to ban, a united front doesn't
> accomplish all that much.
> The real trolls don't stop because you ask them too nicely.

Yes, you are right, the real trolls won't be stopped by that, however, a
consensus to ignore certainly will.  Which is the same as banning, but
by agreement of ALL list members (or most).

> 
> The first trick is picking the 'leaders' - I gather in FL/OSS
> tradition they should be volunteers :-)
> We will need at least a place where we can record the vic^h^h^h
> moderators names for everyone's reference.

If we do have moderators, we should also have a method of measuring
performance of said moderators.


> 
> The second trick is the 'rules' - the united front you referred to.
> Is the CoC 'good enough' ?

The CoC I think is just fine.  The problem isn't with the CoC, it's with
appropriate and correct disciplinary action for violators.

> The one thing missing from that is likely rules for the moderators themselves...

Again, a performance metric for moderators would likely handle that.

> 
> Here's a thought - How about an ubuntu-users moderation  list?  Yes,
> it's another list :-(
> But on the bright side it should keep a lot of the discussion about
> discussions off this list, which is part of the point right?
> The moderation discussion list would be free for anyone to join and
> the moderators would have to commit to only ever discussing moderation
> issues on that list.

I don't mind that idea, if it's a matter of protocol or examining new
circumstances, but those decisions still need to be disseminated to all
list members.


> 
> I have a very strong issue with any sort of moderation where the
> discussion isn't out in the wide open for anyone who cares to look.
> 
> And of course all the moderators would have to sign the CoC
> 
> My first thought was I'd be willing to help out with this, but like
> everyone else I'm sure it's time permitting.
> 
> Brian


-- 
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
(828) 350-2415