Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4E63EFA4.3050701@ellisons.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 22:37:40 +0100
From: Terry Ellison <Terry@ellisons.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110805 Thunderbird/3.1.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Dissatisfaction amongst the community admins, moderators and
 volunteers
References: <4E6361AE.3070907@ellisons.org.uk>
 <CAP-ksoh62Vqb9VYp26VkqaHvr5O55-vesa32qK5qow=DCyOehA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4E638B48.9020200@ellisons.org.uk>
 <CAP-ksoggKBhy80YGxPEFuqSe=4aHtOLCOv6eOukxe4mwQtwzgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4ffp-ybjGS5TWmOHumid9XgDyU_pPFF0OodvUMMMyczNa7ow@mail.gmail.com>
 <1315157787.63820.YahooMailNeo@web161423.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <4E63BD2B.7070104@ellisons.org.uk>
 <CAP-ksoiw3=i-1_QXRwXrcb=ZR1tK-6kzqQoRSJ0K21c_GF+YQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB35315F-AD6D-463C-B357-FC5BA6C066FE@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <DB35315F-AD6D-463C-B357-FC5BA6C066FE@comcast.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------080002010807040103060809"

--------------080002010807040103060809
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 04/09/11 22:13, Dave Fisher wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Terry Ellison<Terry@ellisons.org.uk>  wrote:
>>> On 04/09/11 18:36, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>> Being a member-based organization the ASF requires
>>>> that all foundation activities be subject to member
>>>> scrutiny (with only a handful of operational exceptions).
>>>>
>>>> I would be perfectly satisfied if the private forums
>>>> are fully archived and made available to any ASF member on
>>>> request, without undue delay.
>>> +1
>>> I personally agree that we should have the absolute minimum as world-no
>>> access, and clear and valid reasons to limit such access.  I think that it's
>>> something that we could sell to the community.   The main hassle is trolls
>>> and flamers posting into the moderation forums, so it would be better to
>>> limit write access.
>>>
>> I'd distinguish private forums where you discuss
>> confidential/sensitive matters from public forums where forum
>> volunteers discuss evolution of policies, future directions, etc., and
>> reach consensus on these topics.
>>
>> For the private forums you have no need to fear trolls or flamers,
>> right?  In theory, we could get a troll post to ooo-private, but I've
>> never seen that happen.
>>
>> As for the other forum, the public forum, I see no place for a
>> read-only public forum where volunteers discuss things but the general
>> public cannot post.  If they flame or otherwise abuse the forum, then
>> moderate them.  That is one of your competencies.
>>
>>> I don't think that granting any ASF member read or read/write access to
>>> *all* forums would be an issue as long as they broadly respect the rules of
>>> the forum.
>>>
>> The rules of the forum are subject to PPMC review and approval, just
>> like any other part of the project. So I think it would be very
>> unlikely that there would be a conflict between Apache Member
>> expectations and forum rules.
>>
>>> Both of these options are reasonable and therefore could be quickly "sold"
>>> to the community, IMHO.  However, this is a very different and easier pitch
>>> than the hard line that Rob proposes.
>>>
>>> It would also be possible for someone to develop (as Rob suggests) a feed
>>> from such forums into a DL such as ooo-private.  However, this would be a
>>> non-trivial bit of custom code development as this isn't standard phpBB
>>> functionality and the Logical Data Model for a rich-text Topic/Post paradigm
>>> would require a bit of massage to flatten into a plain text email format.
>>>   We might have resourcing issues here.
>>>
>> I think we need this part as well.  Remember, Joe was speaking from a
>> Member perspective.  I am speaking from a PPMC perspective.  There are
>> similar, but non-identical concerns here.
> If several members of the PPMC are participating as forum volunteers and all the conversations in these private lists are immutable and available to the whole PPMC and Apache Members why would we need a feed to ooo-private? This really isn't any different from the PPMC trusting a small number of ML moderators.
One specific technical point:  the content of no forums or posts is 
immutable.  Originators and moderators can change their content or even 
withdraw it by deleting the post.  We do this regularly with spam.  No 
forum models that I am familiar with embeds versioning.  This being said 
the *practice* followed on this forum is to leave and audit "[edit]" tag 
in place in the post, so if someone referred to a bug by a popular 
obscene epithet then a moderator might change it to "that bug was a 
f***ing c*** to track down" as we have a no unnecessary obscenity rule.  
However, the same use ad hominem would result in the post being moved to 
quarantine and the editor warned or banned depending on the content.

So the /practice/ is to leave this type of content unchanged, and the 
process of moderator checks and balances would normally pick up on 
abuses.  However, the system does not enforce immutability.

--------------080002010807040103060809--