-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Rajko M. wrote:
On Saturday 19 January 2008 09:12:03 am Druid wrote:
People who want to abuse and troll will keep on doing it, they'll cloak, they'll use other servers to connect with a different IP, they'll create new email addresses on gmail or yahoo, etc... There is also different ways to troll. Some are blatant, some not easy to detect. Different people have different opinion what is trolling, etc. This is why Pascal is correct and the voting thing you've proposed is completely doomed to fail.
Automated is far fetched idea, but voting system is not.
Maybe you should explain in a little more detail what you actually mean with voting (from a technical point of view). My understanding of what you wrote is that when someone is abusing/trolling, he's put up to a vote of anyone on whether he should be banned or not. I don't see that as a practical approach, just because 1) abuse on IRC has to be stopped immediately, it's real time, it's annoying for the 200+ people in the room 2) abuse on forums is legion, moderators spend quite some time removing and banning spam and trolls every single day On mailing-lists, it might be possible, but even there it's just too slow of a process.
Board needs something that will give them idea what majority of users want. In market economy is bad idea to ignore majority, it strikes back hard, and openSUSE is supported with companies that live on the market.
We're not in a market economy. It's obviously important to know what the majority wants, but it's also important to know what the best solutions and choices are, based on experience (technical, community, ...).
The problem is: "How to detect what is acceptable for majority?"
You can't, because the majority isn't even participating in polls/votes nor discussions like these (and that's much more important issue than the code of conduct, but I'm not sure whether it can be solved). That situation, btw, can only be improved through more communication, accessible communication channels, unification of the various parts of our community (people helping on mailing-lists, people busy on the several forums we have, regulars on IRC, packagers, developers, translators, wiki contributors, etc...). I don't think there's anything wrong with - - having guidelines that define what we think are good practices and a good ground for fertile collaboration, contribution and use (note that "we" = the community, as the Guidelines have been discussed at length on this mailing-list) - - having moderators who enforce those rules, and other aspects they think are necessary for having a working community
[...]
Those who will step up to be "moderators" [...]
Nobody was asked to step up. Volunteer is not only self appointed (that is how it works right now), but
How do you mean, "volunteers are self appointed right now" ?
also the one that is invited and accepted invitation. Volunteer moderator is not necessarily with power to enforce decision, but for sure the one that has good judgment how to deal with irregularities (most of the time). It is actually good idea to separate judgment and execution. That will prevent personal affinities to influence decision.
What you are writing may apply in a government, but certainly not for the actual matters we're discussing. This is about a code of conduct for communication and behaviour, most specifically in things like mailing-lists, forums and IRC. When you have someone with abusive behaviour (insulting, blatantly trolling, spamming, etc...) who generates a lot of frustration and bad mood on a community media, you have to get rid of him as quickly as possible, as it's driving people away. There's no time to make a public vote at a parliament and then have administrators close down accounts.
Take volunteer as Board trustee in communication media content matters.
I really don't think the analogy applies. [...]
And from what I know, things are getting enforced. Let the people do their jobs.
It seems that it doesn't work quite well, otherwise Board will not come with idea that something has to be done.
To me the reasons are two-fold: - - it is currently working reasonably well, but can be improved - - it's mostly about having it written black on white somewhere (which is mostly the case but in different locations, written by different people, ...)
[...]
Who is solving disputes between moderators? Nobody, in a meritocracy that's usually not needed, people are sensible enough to get to a common conclusion without needing to vote.
Meritocracy is not good if you are trying to convice somebody to use your product or you have to deal with volunteers. It works within company, where people are bound with will to make money, but outside is useless.
Actually it's the exact opposite. Meritocracy is a distinctive feature of communities as ours (opensource communities), and doesn't apply _at_ _all_ in the corporate environment (in companies that want to make money). Meritocracy is really one of the things that are driving all this. Some people put a lot of work, time, know-how and passion into their contributions to our community (as in other opensource communities), and they deserve credit, respect and a voice for that. And seriously, this is absolutely not how it's working in the corporate environment. It's typically quite the opposite. To me it's not about "convincing", it's about making the best community from a human point of view, and the best distribution from a technical point of view. Atmosphere, effectiveness and quality are the factors that must be convincing, not ... what ? Could you please explain what, in your opinion, is a superior alternative to meritocracy in our context. And as for dealing with volunteers, again, meritocracy is the best approach, because those volunteers who effectively drive the community forward through their contributions (of whatever sorts) get certain things back from the community. At least the latter is how it should be, and there's probably some room for improvement in that area. The others, the "wannabees" as you call them yourself, are not helping the community and hence.. who cares. And before you pick on that point, the community isn't some beast that has to be nurtured by sleepless nights of its enslaved contributors. The community is us. It's you, it's me, it's the users, it's the contributors. But to me, the very first condition for being part of a community is wanting to take part in it.
How user can verify that he/she is warned by moderator? They already do in the appropriate media
It is about verification that warning came from officially appointed one, not from wannabe one. It is not only warning for one person, but for all that read the thread. Final warning will anyway come from list operator.
See, that's what meritocracy is all about: the mods aren't wannabees.
And what would an "officially appointed one" be ? Someone from Novell ?
Someone designated into that role by .. whom, public vote (where? how?
is that representative of a majority?), the board, Novell ?
Could we just grow up and stop looking up to Novell or "officialness" to
actually get something done ?
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\