From ooo-dev-return-5100-apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Mon Sep 5 21:44:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B3793826B for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 21:44:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 33971 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2011 21:44:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 33787 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2011 21:44:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 33779 invoked by uid 99); 5 Sep 2011 21:44:48 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 21:44:48 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of rgardler@opendirective.com designates 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.210.175] (HELO mail-iy0-f175.google.com) (209.85.210.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 21:44:43 +0000 Received: by iagz35 with SMTP id z35so6821589iag.6 for ; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 14:44:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=opendirective.com; s=opendirective; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=j1IIXoMpe7yyWyFt2BIO9nvRQkmP+er8GPWmcG7zOTg=; b=gIfC4CRgsH0z6ZaJhQjwYLYI7pvIcyBMcead0HslpxiiOwOBUMQrfpV6QvxXjIu1vI 5Rh569LcmuBX5RCjwUlLGS4AmcChJEdRoa8pvuEaH7PrsCoFNKeUP+neR+MszoRFACBn ij4Fud2RzMd1y0m78Z+Ktj2pcOFlVqI+MhKqI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.152.72 with SMTP id h8mr4002389icw.419.1315259061824; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 14:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.196.195 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 14:44:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [129.67.52.181] In-Reply-To: <20110905175235.aad84bfad53b166a60c073e2@iol.ie> References: <4E6361AE.3070907@ellisons.org.uk> <4E638B48.9020200@ellisons.org.uk> <1315157787.63820.YahooMailNeo@web161423.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1315159969.15159.39.camel@sybil> <20110905122829.GA26336@daniel3.local> <00a401cc6be9$bb748770$325d9650$@acm.org> <20110905175235.aad84bfad53b166a60c073e2@iol.ie> Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 22:44:21 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Dissatisfaction amongst the community admins, moderators and volunteers From: Ross Gardler To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 5 September 2011 17:52, Rory O'Farrell wrote: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 09:34:48 -0700 > "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: > >>> >> Whether to move to deletion or simply expunge immediately might be a cho= ice of the moderator. =A0I do not know. > > In general, blatant spam posts, advertising sales sites, are immediately = expunged. This is consistent with ASF mail list moderation practice. On a mailing list mails that are from non-subscribers will be sent to a moderation queue. As a moderator I can choose to reject or approve that mail at any time. After I have done that no other action by a moderator will have any effect, although a number of moderators will have a copy of the original mail. Similarly, if a subscribed mail address posts spam I can (if I'm a moderator) ban that email address. Common practice is that I would tell the list that I have banned the address. People can object if they feel the need. If I consistently abuse my rights as a moderator my privileges will be removed (I've never seen that happen, but in theory it could). I don't see any problems with adopting what seems to be, for all intents an purposes, the same process on the forums. My only concern is the visibility into private discussions relating to list policies. I've expressed this concern and have been told that a solution is possible. At this point I am not seeing a problem other than consensus and time. Ross