[CentOS-devel] Talk about existing forums

Akemi Yagi amyagi at gmail.com
Thu Dec 17 08:21:40 UTC 2009


On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Akemi Yagi <amyagi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Before the KB's message was posted to this mailing list, there was a
> conversation among the people who participated in the chat. I am now
> trying to paste the content of what we discussed in that conversation
> for everyone to see.

That was the first part of the conversation. Here's the second (and
the last) part.

Akemi

========================
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:41:36AM +0000, Ned Slider wrote:

Karanbir,

One issue I'd like to raise (again) that I forgot to raise yesterday
during the call is use of "company" email. I raised this before and I
think it was misunderstood (given the public belittling I received),
maybe because CentOS currently associates @centos.org email addresses
with other roles.

But there are times when forum moderators will be required to
communicate with members by email, and it is only professional and
right to provide a tool to do that job. It is unfair (and
unprofessional) to expect moderators to correspond with their own
email addresses when conducting business on behalf of the CentOS
forums, and I know Phil S has also raised the issue before,
understandably not wanting to use his nasa.gov address for such
activities.

If an @centos.org implies something more privileged then I would
suggest an alternative domain or subdomain such as @centosforums.org
or @forums.centos.org, something that can be more clearly associated
with the role in question. In my not so humble experience, when you
don't give people the right tools to do the job they very quickly get
fed up doing said job and move on. Of course there is an implicit
understanding that such email addresses are only used when
appropriate, but IMHO it's a tool that needs to be made available to
forum moderators.

==================
Scott Robbins wrote:

> One issue I'd like to raise (again) that I forgot to raise yesterday
> during the call is use of "company" email. I raised this before and I
> think it was misunderstood (given the public belittling I received),
> maybe because CentOS currently associates @centos.org email addresses
> with other roles.

Not having seen that conversation, I'm a bit shocked that something so
obvious would be belittled.  Do mods have to communicate with members
using their own email addresses?  If I were an unruly member, and
received an email from say, Ned, at his own email address, I'd be more
likely to send back a nasty answer, saying, in part, how do I know
you're from CentOS and not someone else with a similar username?

That one goes without saying. As Ned suggests, if there's special
criteria for a centos.org address, then create a centosforums.org or
something similar.

I'm sorry that I'm seeming so negative about all these things, but
again, it comes from experience doing it the other way.

> to provide a tool to do that job. It is unfair (and unprofessional) to
> expect moderators to correspond with their own email addresses when
> conducting business on behalf of the CentOS forums, and I know Phil S
> has also raised the issue before, understandably not wanting to use his
> nasa.gov address for such activities.

As I always say, (stolen from Cracked.com, but so often applicable to
technology), "What could possibly go wrong with that?"

And the answer certainly should not be, tell him to get a gmail address
to use.  That's saying, We don't appreciate your work.  You want to
help, it's up to you to get the tools.

> If an @centos.org implies something more privileged then I would suggest
> an alternative domain or subdomain such as @centosforums.org or
> @forums.centos.org, something that can be more clearly associated with
> the role in question. In my not so humble experience, when you don't
> give people the right tools to do the job they very quickly get fed up
> doing said job and move on.

See my earlier email. Extremely valid point.  People are doing this out
of their own goodness.


Of course there is an implicit understanding
> that such email addresses are only used when appropriate, but IMHO it's
> a tool that needs to be made available to forum moderators.

One other possibility, and what we use in the Fedora forums, is the
Private Message option.  When a member commits an infringement, they're
given a private message from staff which is usually also shown to other
staff in the staff lounge.  The member's response is also printed.

That's not quite essential, in most cases, general summations are
acceptable save when the member gives an unacceptable response, such as
the one who accusesd us of being in the pay of RedHat.  (Which was more
amusing than aggravating, causing a lot of wasted posts about, "Where's
my cut?"  And someone else answering, "You didn't get it?  Ooops, never
mind."

While members have the option of turning off PMs, it is expected that
will leave the default of accepting PMs from staff.

=================
Ned Slider wrote:

I'm talking specifically about situations where members may not have
access to the forums so email is the only form of communicating - such
as notifying a member he's received a temp ban for some infringement
of rules, or confirming a members identity who's lost access to their
registered email account and forgotten their password - surprising how
often that happens!

=================
End of paste


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list