[UbuntuWomen] Non-members posting! [was] Re: Fwd: [Blueprint community-1311-ubuntu-women] Ubuntu Women Trusty Goals

Valorie Zimmerman valorie.zimmerman at gmail.com
Mon Apr 14 08:07:47 UTC 2014


On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 8:58 PM, svakSha <svaksha at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello All,
> I've changed the subject line to reflect the discussion at hand.
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Elizabeth Krumbach Joseph
> <lyz at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> As an aside: Since we need the mailing list to accept non-member
>> postings in order for blueprint updates to work, I've asked svaksha to
>> loosen the restriction on posting to the list so that emails land in
>> the moderation queue. She had to restrict posting to members in order
>> to handle spam, so we'll have to recruit more moderators to handle the
>> spam queue, please contact her if you're interested in helping out :)
> For any Foss team/project, its important to be open and transparent,
> hence, I'm forced to post pleia2's irc message here as the
> #ubuntu-women channel is not logged and I find her irc message
> accusatory and insulting, largely based on fallacies which I'm trying
> to clear below.

Svaksha. Do you really think that Lyz would accuse and insult you? It
is really distressing to see this technical matter get turned into
something personal.

Knowing both of you, I don't think it is personal.

> <quote>
> 2014-04-13:CEST:21:59:30 < pleia2> svaksha: add more admins if the
> current team can't handle the spam queue, our blueprints don't work if
> non-members can't post,
>                                    this is very bad
> 2014-04-13:CEST:21:59:59 < pleia2> svaksha: we have to make sure
> non-members can post because not everyone uses their default email in
> launchpad as their mailing
>                                    list email
> 2014-04-13:CEST:22:00:50 < pleia2> svaksha: he's already posted 3
> times, it's really too much to ask again, I'll forward his mail
> 2014-04-13:CEST:22:01:56 < pleia2> it's ridiculous that I've had to
> spend 5 days trying to get this mail through :(
> </unquote>
> Regarding LP members who wish to post here, how many such members
> exist? I had suggested that they sub and set their options to NOMAIL,
> which you completely ignored. Instead, you are now twisting my words
> to conclude that the existing admins have not done a good job - how
> did you jump to this conclusion at all?  The fact is that I am on irc
> 24x7 and never once (in those 5 days as you claim above) did you ping
> me that cprofitt was having a problem. I saw jamfish trying to help
> you and left it at that, so if you wanted another pair of eyes to help
> out, all you had to do was ask. You didnt.

I see nothing here concluding that the admins have not done a good
job. It would have been good if cprofitt had written directly to the
listowner team, but not a lot of people know how to do that, or think
of doing it.

Most people assume that when they email a list, *someone* will see the email.

> If LP members wish to post here, why not ask them to subscribe, set
> their options to NOMAIL, which means they dont get list mail but they
> can freely post as much as they like. There is a simple solution for
> the problem you raised, for which Mailman has a technical solution but
> you ignored this completely, instead you accuse the admins of not
> doing their job. I find that very disturbing because a large majority
> of linux-related mailing lists dont allow non-subscribers to post,
> which cannot be twisted to mean their admins (some lists have just one
> admin fwiw) are incapable or incompetent to handle spam. Why do you
> think a women's list, being managed by women should allow random
> people on the internet to spam the list as a free-for-all? There is a
> technical solution in Mailman and yet you choose to ignore it. Why?

There are other technical solutions in Mailman for what we need. One
is to ask people to subscribe, one is to add alternate addresses to
the accept list, and still another is to flip the switch to disallow
postings from non-subscribers to be *automatically* discarded. This
final solution does not allow non-subscribers to post, but instead
moderates all emails from non-subscribers.

I've run many lists in the past, and still administer over 50 lists. I
use all of the above strategies, when appropriate. Many of the lists
are linux-oriented (Linuxchix and KDE) and they allow moderated
posting from non-subscribers for the most part.

> Mailman has a bayesian filter for this technical problem and it just
> works(TM). The main reason why non-members are not allowed to post is
> their lack of enlightened self-interest
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest) in a specific
> group meant for people interested in that group and its functioning.
> Opening up the mailing list to non-members to post is not the solution
> - the spam I mentioned on irc earlier was caught by mailman's bayesian
> filter (which fwiw, does a very good job imho, a lot better than any
> human ever could), so I have no clue how you jumped to the conclusion
> that the admins are unable to handle the spam and hence closed the
> list. Not true.
> The UW list has always been open to posts from subscribers so the
> accusation that the list is not open is false. Opening up the list
> should not be twisted to mean "give spammers a free-for-all mailing
> list to spam". Not allowing non-subscribers to post has been in
> existence from the time I started this list in Jan2006. People can sub
> and set their individual options to NOMAIL. We have had this
> discussion some years ago too (happy to dig out the archives if you
> wish) so I'll repeat, yet again, that allowing non-subscribers (which
> essentially means the whole internet) to post is not helping us. Even
> if I add moderators to help out, non-subscribers will not be given a
> free-for-all.    If LP members (who will always be a small proportion
> as compared to spammers) cannot subscribe and take out less than 2
> minutes to set their individual options to NOMAIL in mailman, which is
> a ONE time setting, then they are hardly interested in the group and
> its functions, so why should admins/mods who are afterall volunteers
> be forced to spend their time everyday dealing with spammers? That is
> unnecessarily increasing a volunteers workload when a technical
> solution already exists in Mailman. Additionally, if anyone wants to
> be added to the filter (like I added cprofitt when jamfish alerted me
> to the problem), I can do that but I will prefer to not do that
> without obtaining their permission first. Some years ago, all LP
> members were set to receive all the discussions and it ended up
> annoying a lot of people so that feature was changed IIRC and you
> could opt out or in, as the case maybe. Evenso, I am willing to
> consider adding Pendulum (if she still wants to) as a moderator),
> despite the fact that we dont need any moderators and non-subscribers
> will still not be allowed to post. Hope that clarifies.
> Finally, instead of alluding that the current admins are not doing a
> good job pleia2, it would have been nicer if you had just asked (even
> though you already knew that non-members are not allowed to post on
> most Ubuntu lists. Your accusations (current team can't handle the
> spam queue) is not polite and plain wrong and because you have done
> this in the past, I find it extremely tiresome to have to defend my
> team (and myself) again and again every couple of years. People expect
> appreciation for their volunteer work but I dont expect that even, at
> the very least I dont expect insinuations based on fallacies.  Granted
> we (atleast I'm not) are not a noisy bunch but alluding that we are
> not doing a good job because we dont allow non-subscribers and
> spammers a free-for-all is misleading at minimum, and a logical
> fallacy at worst. And personally, I find this depressing and sad
> considering the amount of volunteer work I have done, and continue to
> do, in various Foss communities, including Ubuntu.
> Thanks ॥ svaksha ॥ http://svaksha.com

This: "alluding that we are not doing a good job because we dont allow
non-subscribers and spammers a free-for-all is misleading at minimum,
and a logical fallacy at worst" is a straw man argument. There are
ways to allow non-subscribers to post without opening the list to
spam. Whether or not you wish to use them is another thing.

As I said in IRC, I'm willing to help. But more important than that,
is to remind everyone that we all have the same goal: helping women
integrate into the Ubuntu community. Please let us dialog about the
best ways to do that, and remember that each of us is here for our
common purpose.



More information about the Ubuntu-Women mailing list