On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 18:47 -0700, Philip Chimento via foundation-list wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 1:50 PM Tobias Mueller <muelli cryptobitch dewrote: Hi, On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 18:35 -0700, philip chimento gmail com wrote:I don't find it the best policy to optimize for the convenience of non-members who want to send insulting rants to foundation-listSure. But I don't think we're optimising for those. In fact, the number of insulting rants is surprisingly low.I would _expect_ zero. I don't sign up to the mailing list of a nonprofit so I can watch people abuse the nonprofit's staff.
I think most people would expect zero car accidents, yet they happen and people do die. Should we ban cars now? I agree that zero is a nice goal, but one needs to put things into perspective. Don't forget that there are costs attached to any such decisions. These costs can be both direct (e.g. enforcement) and indirect (e.g. false negative rate). And you are also likely to have other unforeseen side-effects. And, I don't think that is purely theoretical. Somewhat related, I have real concerns with the recently approved Code of Conduct documents; yet I have not spoken up so far. Mainly because I don't feel the Board and Code of Conduct Committee would welcome the feedback. Benjamin
Arguably lower than the number of posts that were banned for no obvious reason.Are we currently moderating posts on foundation-list or not? I thought this whole discussion was about the fact that we are not. If we are, and if legitimate posts are truly being banned, then clearly we need a different moderation process because it's not working in either direction. Can you give an example of a post that was banned for no obvious reason so we know what we're talking about? -- Philip _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list gnome org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part