Re: unsubscribing

[Sandy Armstrong <sanfordarmstrong gmail com>]

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Felix Kaser <f kaser gmx net> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/05/2010 02:57 PM, Paul Cutler wrote:
>>
>> I don't really want to start the conversation again that we had about
>> the Code of Conduct, but if our Foundation members are no longer
>> participating in the conversation for all the reasons we are currently
>> seeing, I think we need to find a solution quickly.
>>
>> I don't know what that solution is without some knee jerk reactions, but
>> I just wanted to communicate my dismay in seeing long standing
>> Foundation members leave the list.
>
> What about forming small workgroups which kick in when a topic becomes
> too "emotional" or simply too complex, unclear and confusing to be
> discussed on foundation list?

Or, moderators could step in immediately when a thread starts to
meander off-topic, and recommend that new threads be started.  This
way, useful threads can be read, and argumentative ones can be ignored
by uninterested parties.

It shouldn't be too hard for those who feel the need to quibble on
certain points, to change the subject of their replies to reflect that
their email is no longer on-topic for the thread.

> If you look at the last 20 or 30 emails you will notice that there are
> some few people which participate at the discussion. I'm sure that there
> are others which are in "read-only" mode or in "ignore" mode. They may
> be too frightened to participate because all they get in return are
> unkind words.

Dave recently shared this article on Planet GNOME, and I do hope that
everyone who is contributing to the bulk of these giant threads (you
know who you are) will take the time to read it:

http://www.danspalding.com/articles/stfu.html

> I suggest to form workgroups which get a own mailinglist and the
> workgroup can discuss the topic (whatever that would be) inside the
> group and present the outcome of the discussion on foundation list.

I'm not trying to knock your idea, but it is a lot of infrastructure
to solve a problem that, realistically, requires immediate action.  It
is not that useful for a workgroup to show up three days later and
declare that a thread has gotten off track.  If we can address the
problem at its source, it might work better.  For example:

* Private emails to the troublemakers, encouraging them to realize the
damaging effects they are having.
* Stop tolerating threads going off-topic.  Insist that a new thread
be started, and enforce repeated offenses with temporary banning.

If nobody is participating in these new argumentative threads, they
will die out on their own.  But as long as they're mixed in with real,
useful debate, the problem of this list being completely unreadable
will continue.

Just my two cents,
Sandy