Hi,
I think the time (150 messages and counting) has come to ask someone of the CentOS team to start moderating this list. I don't mind people discussing whatever topic they like, but not at the expense of the mailinglist and its members.
I don't think the topic really doesn't matter in these discussions, and if done in private they would stand for long anyway.
I would propose someone who has authority of moderating people to send out a warning when a thread has to end (eg. when people start repeating themselves or insults become the main theme) and if necessary temporarily moderate these people/the thread.
I think the mere existence of such a moderator could be sufficient to end lasting threads like the previous.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
Seconded.
On 9/9/05, Dag Wieers dag@wieers.com wrote:
Hi,
I think the time (150 messages and counting) has come to ask someone of the CentOS team to start moderating this list. I don't mind people discussing whatever topic they like, but not at the expense of the mailinglist and its members.
I don't think the topic really doesn't matter in these discussions, and if done in private they would stand for long anyway.
I would propose someone who has authority of moderating people to send out a warning when a thread has to end (eg. when people start repeating themselves or insults become the main theme) and if necessary temporarily moderate these people/the thread.
I think the mere existence of such a moderator could be sufficient to end lasting threads like the previous.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power] _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Solar Canine solarcanine@gmail.com wrote:
Seconded.
Thirded, even if it means I get myself moderated regularly.
Of course, that means manpower is necessary to do the moderating.
Solar Canine wrote:
Seconded.
Just filter the nuissance level folks with your mail client and be done with it. It only takes a couple of minutes to set up a quick filter and you're free. 8-)
I knew something was up today when my trash folder had an abnormally large number of messages and the CentOS list folder had exploded in volume. Where do people find the time?
*shrug*
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:44, Dag Wieers wrote:
I would propose someone who has authority of moderating people to send out a warning when a thread has to end (eg. when people start repeating themselves or insults become the main theme) and if necessary temporarily moderate these people/the thread.
I would nominate one of the project leads to do this, and, I agree, it's a good idea. I am on several lists where this sort of thing is done; one such list, the Broadcast mailing list, has a moderator who does a mailing list redirect to the off-topic list (called 'The Alternate Frequency') when a thread needs moderating.
Or, Dag, are you volunteering? :-) (A merry heart doeth good, like medicine, so be merry).
I don't think that's what our project leads should be devoting their time towards...
Cheers, MaZe.
although moderation would be nice...
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:44, Dag Wieers wrote:
I would propose someone who has authority of moderating people to send out a warning when a thread has to end (eg. when people start repeating themselves or insults become the main theme) and if necessary temporarily moderate these people/the thread.
I would nominate one of the project leads to do this, and, I agree, it's a good idea. I am on several lists where this sort of thing is done; one such list, the Broadcast mailing list, has a moderator who does a mailing list redirect to the off-topic list (called 'The Alternate Frequency') when a thread needs moderating.
Or, Dag, are you volunteering? :-) (A merry heart doeth good, like medicine, so be merry).
On Saturday 10 September 2005 06:34, Maciej Żenczykowski wrote:
I don't think that's what our project leads should be devoting their time towards...
I agree with you there. Filter out on your client what you don't want to see - but don't expect geeks like the guys that develop CentOS to waste their time with mundane things like moderating a list...
Peter.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Peter Arremann wrote:
On Saturday 10 September 2005 06:34, Maciej ÿÿenczykowski wrote:
I don't think that's what our project leads should be devoting their time towards...
I agree with you there. Filter out on your client what you don't want to see - but don't expect geeks like the guys that develop CentOS to waste their time with mundane things like moderating a list...
I think you have a specific definition of 'list moderation'. Mailman allows to moderate individuals or topics on a case by case basis. If a thread becomes spurious and loaded with lots of negative comments a 'known' moderator could simply state that a topic has to be ended or moved to somewhere else (private or other mailinglist). And if necessary he can moderate individuals or topics. (temporary)
This moderation also slows down the interaction, because in most cases people are answering mails at the same time and repeating stuff they've just said because someone else just replied and didn't read the mail you've just send. (silly but that's what happens at a fast pace)
I did not imply moderating each and every post all the time.
Once we have a moderator who can intervene (and is known), I bet most people will behave and think before posting anything, because there might be a penalty (read: being moderated temporary).
So it's mostly a change in attitude to the list.
The moderator also doesn't have to be a CentOS developer per se, in fact, it may be better if not. But at this point the CentOS developers have to decide whether or not to do this. That's why I addressed them.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
On Saturday 10 September 2005 15:13, Dag Wieers wrote:
I think you have a specific definition of 'list moderation'. Mailman allows to moderate individuals or topics on a case by case basis. If a thread becomes spurious and loaded with lots of negative comments a 'known' moderator could simply state that a topic has to be ended or moved to somewhere else (private or other mailinglist). And if necessary he can moderate individuals or topics. (temporary)
Sorry I misunderstood you then... This makes a lot more sense :-)
Peter.
On Saturday 10 September 2005 15:13, Dag Wieers wrote:
I think you have a specific definition of 'list moderation'. Mailman allows to moderate individuals or topics on a case by case basis ... And if necessary he can moderate individuals or topics. (temporary)
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 15:24 -0400, Peter Arremann wrote:
Sorry I misunderstood you then... This makes a lot more sense :-)
What Dag is referring to is the ability of Mailman to easily and explicitly filter any sender or subject (or even body/content).
I have absolutely _no_ issue if even a small (but objective) minority wants my posts (i.e., anything from b.j.smith@ieee.org, as that's all I use now thanx to Yahoo Mail) to be held for "approval" before allowing them to hit the lists. It doesn't bother me one bit, because I don't post things just to hear myself talk, but in the honest, technical pursuit for accuracy, typically via (often annoying, I'll admit, but complete) explanation of first-hand experience.
I'm not here to posting like some /.'er "First Post Whore." Again, I'm open to having _all_ my posts manually approved.
The only thing I ask is that you tell me when you enable it for 2 reasons:
1. I don't wonder if I'm having e-mail issues (and end up sending multiple posts if I don't see my posts hit the mailing list after several hours) and, more importantly,
2. In the cases of downtime or of other, immediate use, I can "TO" the original poster and "CC" the list. The flip side and "bonus" of this is that to an observant receiver, he can just hit "reply" (instead of "replay to all") and get help off-list, avoiding a lot of the "inaccurate addendum" that often results in such threads (which I then feel compelled to respond to for accuracy -- a very annoying approach to some, which feel I'm being "arrogant").
[ HISTORICAL NOTE: In fact, this worked very well when I had a "4-year open flame war" with Steve Litt over at LEAP, where my technical discussions got constantly belittled by his 3rd hand assumptions and other posturing. ]
--- Dag Wieers dag@wieers.com wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Peter Arremann wrote:
On Saturday 10 September 2005 06:34, Maciej
ÿÿenczykowski wrote:
I don't think that's what our project leads
should be devoting their time
towards...
I agree with you there. Filter out on your client
what you don't want to see -
but don't expect geeks like the guys that develop
CentOS to waste their time
with mundane things like moderating a list...
I think you have a specific definition of 'list moderation'. Mailman allows to moderate individuals or topics on a case by case basis. If a thread becomes spurious and loaded with lots of negative comments a 'known' moderator could simply state that a topic has to be ended or moved to somewhere else (private or other mailinglist). And if necessary he can moderate individuals or topics. (temporary)
This moderation also slows down the interaction, because in most cases people are answering mails at the same time and repeating stuff they've just said because someone else just replied and didn't read the mail you've just send. (silly but that's what happens at a fast pace)
I did not imply moderating each and every post all the time.
Once we have a moderator who can intervene (and is known), I bet most people will behave and think before posting anything, because there might be a penalty (read: being moderated temporary).
So it's mostly a change in attitude to the list.
The moderator also doesn't have to be a CentOS developer per se, in fact, it may be better if not. But at this point the CentOS developers have to decide whether or not to do this. That's why I addressed them.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I then Volunteer Mr. Dag Wieers to the position of Moderator of the centos general mailing list!
;-D
Steven
"On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section, it said 'Requires Windows or better'. So I installed Linux."
On 9/10/05, Steven Vishoot sir_funzone@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Dag Wieers dag@wieers.com wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Peter Arremann wrote:
On Saturday 10 September 2005 06:34, Maciej
ÿÿenczykowski wrote:
I don't think that's what our project leads
should be devoting their time
towards...
I agree with you there. Filter out on your client
what you don't want to see -
but don't expect geeks like the guys that develop
CentOS to waste their time
with mundane things like moderating a list...
I think you have a specific definition of 'list moderation'. Mailman allows to moderate individuals or topics on a case by case basis. If a thread becomes spurious and loaded with lots of negative comments a 'known' moderator could simply state that a topic has to be ended or moved to somewhere else (private or other mailinglist). And if necessary he can moderate individuals or topics. (temporary)
This moderation also slows down the interaction, because in most cases people are answering mails at the same time and repeating stuff they've just said because someone else just replied and didn't read the mail you've just send. (silly but that's what happens at a fast pace)
I did not imply moderating each and every post all the time.
Once we have a moderator who can intervene (and is known), I bet most people will behave and think before posting anything, because there might be a penalty (read: being moderated temporary).
So it's mostly a change in attitude to the list.
The moderator also doesn't have to be a CentOS developer per se, in fact, it may be better if not. But at this point the CentOS developers have to decide whether or not to do this. That's why I addressed them.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]>
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I then Volunteer Mr. Dag Wieers to the position of Moderator of the centos general mailing list!
;-D
I second and co-nominate Jim Perrin to terms of 6 months.
Greg
Maciej Żenczykowski wrote:
[regarding list moderation by project leads]
I don't think that's what our project leads should be devoting their time towards...
Hear, hear!
Mike
I think the time (150 messages and counting) has come to ask someone of the CentOS team to start moderating this list. I don't mind people discussing whatever topic they like, but not at the expense of the mailinglist and its members.
I don't think the topic really doesn't matter in these discussions, and if done in private they would stand for long anyway.
I would propose someone who has authority of moderating people to send out a warning when a thread has to end (eg. when people start repeating themselves or insults become the main theme) and if necessary temporarily moderate these people/the thread.
I think the mere existence of such a moderator could be sufficient to end lasting threads like the previous.
In my opinion the best way would be make few more detailed lists. Ex.: security@centos.org hardware@centos.org etc.
Regards.
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 12:49 +0200, Dominik Składanowski wrote:
I think the time (150 messages and counting) has come to ask someone of the CentOS team to start moderating this list. I don't mind people discussing whatever topic they like, but not at the expense of the mailinglist and its members.
I don't think the topic really doesn't matter in these discussions, and if done in private they would stand for long anyway.
I would propose someone who has authority of moderating people to send out a warning when a thread has to end (eg. when people start repeating themselves or insults become the main theme) and if necessary temporarily moderate these people/the thread.
I think the mere existence of such a moderator could be sufficient to end lasting threads like the previous.
In my opinion the best way would be make few more detailed lists. Ex.: security@centos.org hardware@centos.org etc.
We have discussed this (more lists). That might be good for some things. We'll look at it again.
In the meantime ... I don't want to babysit people.
For crying out load, we don't need to personally attack people and resort to very negative things.
With the thread in question (which I have a couple posts to), we could have easily posted some examples of both a centos 3 and 4 metadata file and had some meaningful discussions without belittling people.
I firmly believe in freedom of speech (or I would not be helping with CentOS in the first place), so there will be no removing of threads or blocking of posts unless they are totally outrageous.
I also do not want to block people from posting to the list, and that will also be an absolute last resort.
Just let each of us take a little personal responsibility and hold back on some things and see if we can work through the issues and not also add personal attacks and to our posts.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes CentOS-4 Lead Developer
Dominik Składanowski wrote:
In my opinion the best way would be make few more detailed lists. Ex.: security@centos.org hardware@centos.org etc.
That NEVER works. "Naughty" folks are going to want to get their say. If they feel like they are being marginalised by being "forced" onto a lesser traffic list, they'll usually just post to the main list anyway. Rather than have anyone waste their time moderating the list, my suggestion (again) is that people who are annoyed by the volume or content of posts simply use a filter on their mail client. I generally use Thunderbird these days and it literally took no more than a couple of minutes to set up the filtering. It's been quite effective for me.
Cheers,
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Chris Mauritz wrote:
Dominik Skadanowski wrote:
In my opinion the best way would be make few more detailed lists. Ex.: security@centos.org hardware@centos.org etc.
That NEVER works. "Naughty" folks are going to want to get their say. If they feel like they are being marginalised by being "forced" onto a lesser traffic list, they'll usually just post to the main list anyway.
I agree with that.
Rather than have anyone waste their time moderating the list, my suggestion (again) is that people who are annoyed by the volume or content of posts simply use a filter on their mail client. I generally use Thunderbird these days and it literally took no more than a couple of minutes to set up the filtering. It's been quite effective for me.
Moderation doesn't have to be a time-wasting effort for the moderator. In fact, I think that as soon as we have a moderator assigned (and a short policy to how it will work) most of the long threads could be ended by a simple message of the moderator. (If necessary followed by moderation of the involved parties)
Filtering on the other hand requires everyone to take action, and especially for those we want to keep on the list and are more vulnerable to long off-topic discussions (new users) it is the most annoying and the most difficult to filter the noise out.
To me, if there's one list that should be (softly) moderated (as explained earlier) than it should be the general CentOS list. To protect the silent majority from inter-personal attacks that have little to add to the list.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 06:49, Dominik Składanowski wrote:
In my opinion the best way would be make few more detailed lists. Ex.: security@centos.org hardware@centos.org etc.
Regards.
More lists are not going to resolve the afore mentioned issue. More lists will lead to cross posting between the lists (just to make sure those that know something see your particular problem) and the threads that drift off topic and devolve to the point that no useful info is being exchanged will still occur. Just in more places and most likely with posts to several lists. I don't think there is any easy way to curb such threads that devolve to such a point. An email filter will work but it is like trying not to watch a train wreck. You just hate to miss it. :)
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 12:15 -0400, Scot L. Harris wrote:
More lists are not going to resolve the afore mentioned issue.
That's not entirely true. Yes, it won't solve the #1 complaint.
But the #2 complaint I've noted is hardware selection and good server design being discussed on the list, among other "good practices" (e.g., DNS, configuration management, etc...). Yes, it's not CentOS specific, but it's very CentOS relevant at the same time.
We could _really_ use a "practices" list where these things could be discussed. Things that are not CentOS-specific, but heavily impact day- to-day deployments of CentOS where the CentOS userbase could be tapped. Things where another list might not be privy to the specifics of CentOS, and it because a catch-22 of software-specific v. CentOS-specific.
More lists will lead to cross posting between the lists (just to make sure those that know something see your particular problem) and the threads that drift off topic and devolve to the point that no useful info is being exchanged will still occur. Just in more places and most likely with posts to several lists.
The key is people need to use a good method of "moving" to another list.
I use 2 techniques, sometimes both -- _neither_ is a direct cross-post.
One is to post directly to the other list, and CC _all_ the original participants. That way, their follow-up is to the other list, and not the original. It takes some time, but it's worth it.
The other is to just make a brief statement on the original list that "I am responding on (whatever list)" and state _nothing_ else. Don't even quote anyone, which leaves no room for anyone to read something double- quoted and response. People just need to do this and it typically addresses it within 2-3 more follow-ups.
So while I agree with you that more lists only introduce cross-posting, we really _could_ use a "[best] practices" list. Again, it would address the catch-22 of going to a software-specific list, but losing the CentOS-specific user-base/knowledge-share.
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 01:36, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 12:15 -0400, Scot L. Harris wrote:
More lists are not going to resolve the afore mentioned issue.
That's not entirely true. Yes, it won't solve the #1 complaint.
But the #2 complaint I've noted is hardware selection and good server design being discussed on the list, among other "good practices" (e.g., DNS, configuration management, etc...). Yes, it's not CentOS specific, but it's very CentOS relevant at the same time.
We could _really_ use a "practices" list where these things could be discussed. Things that are not CentOS-specific, but heavily impact day- to-day deployments of CentOS where the CentOS userbase could be tapped. Things where another list might not be privy to the specifics of CentOS, and it because a catch-22 of software-specific v. CentOS-specific.
And there is where having additional lists usually hits a snag. People post a question to the main list, get no response or an inadequate response because those that have the answers only monitor the narrowed lists due to the volume on the main list. Which leads directly to heavy cross posting between mailing lists.
Trying to get people to use a good method of moving between lists is doomed to failure. It will only lead to more postings trying to explain to everyone how to move to another list and where to find the other list. Same as on some lists that are full of posts trying to stop top posting. :)
A separate practice lists would only appeal to those wanting to learn or discuss best practices. Best practices should be part of any solution provided. :)
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 12:32 -0400, Scot L. Harris wrote:
A separate practice lists would only appeal to those wanting to learn or discuss best practices.
Given the #2 complaint about me seems to be volume and focus, and in the overwhelming majority of these cases, I'm just sharing my first-hand experience and practices. That's something that tends to enfuriate many seasoned administrators because they already know it, and it seems like I'm "talking down to them."
If you are someone that enjoys the added verbage with my recommendations, or don't mind not reading them, great. But I've found there is a significant enough number of people (I could at least 2 dozen) who disagree, and a "practices" list could serve their wishes.
Best practices should be part of any solution provided. :)
Again, I _beg_ to differ because my posting verbage seems to be a regular complaint. With a "practices" list, I could easily say "I'll discuss this more on the 'practices' list" and I expect people to hold me to it (although I'll do a good job myself).
And I'm sure it would free up other people's tongues who have more or, better yet, complementary experience to mine, but are afraid to share them because of the complaints I take (as well as a select, few others -- I'm not the only one, although probably the greatest "offender" overall) in our expansions of ideas on this list.
Dag Wieers wrote:
Hi,
I think the time (150 messages and counting) has come to ask someone of the CentOS team to start moderating this list. I don't mind people
[snip]
Interesting...
A message purporting to reduce the level of "noise" on the echo results in a thread with twenty (20) messages in it.
I wouldn't burden people doing volunteer work with any other requests for duty, myself...
Mike
-
Bryan J. Smith -
Chris Mauritz -
Dag Wieers -
Dominik Składanowski -
Greg Knaddison -
Johnny Hughes -
Lamar Owen -
Maciej Żenczykowski -
Mike McCarty -
Peter Arremann -
Scot L. Harris -
Solar Canine -
Steven Vishoot