From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ista Zahn Subject: Re: posting guide? Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:21:40 -0400 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55390) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UFrFU-0005uY-1y for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:22:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UFrFS-0000Ab-D6 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:22:03 -0400 Received: from mail-da0-x232.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]:35371) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UFrFS-0000A5-6j for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:22:02 -0400 Received: by mail-da0-f50.google.com with SMTP id t1so551934dae.37 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:22:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Jay Kerns Cc: Org Mode List +1 On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Jay Kerns wrote: > The past few days have reminded me of something somebody famous > once said [1]. I can already see work being done to protect the > community for the future, yet I believe there is more we might do > to be even stronger. > > I understand and appreciate Bastien's stated position regarding > moderator controls [2], and in that particular case I think he > did the right thing. At the same time, I do not possess his > seemingly superhuman level of patience, temperance, and couth. > > Yes, I can add people to my SPAM filter (which I did, BTW), but > that action protects only *me*. It does not protect the > community. Further, my later blissful ignorance means I am > unavailable to respond to future threats, so malicious > individuals are left to run rampant and destroy everybody else > still hanging around. Of course, if *everybody* agrees to divert > to SPAM then we're all set. > > That's my point: I propose that we, as a community, come to some > sort of consensus as to what un/acceptable behavior is and an > accepted mechanism of response. One way to accomplish this is > with a posting guide. I have some thoughts about this: > > 1. It should be written and maintained by the community. On > Worg, for instance. > > 2. It should be minimal. Posting guides sometimes go overboard, > to the extent that they can be (and sometimes are) used as a > weapon. I do *not* propose that. If we insist on 1) then I > trust the community to handle it with care. > > 3. It should contain things which help new users draft messages > that are informative and targeted to whatever problem they're > having, things they might not have known otherwise (things like > M-x org-version, M-x toggle-debug-on-error, etc.). > > 4. I think we can all agree that messages like this [3] should > not be tolerated, ever, under any circumstances. If a person > resorts to ad hominem attacks of this sort (or similar) > then (s)he should promptly be shown the door. Period. As far as > I am concerned, that's pretty much the only thing I can't > stomach, but maybe the larger community considers other subjects > to be off-topic or unwelcome on the list. That would be for the > community to decide. > > > All the above is a long-winded way to say that every community > has some /minimum/ standards and expectations of conduct, > otherwise we're just a bunch of people standing around in the > same (virtual) place. To date, these expectations have lived > unspoken or scattered around in emails here or there. I propose > that we come together in a community-driven way to define when > it's time to say "Welcome!" and when it's time to say, "Get > lost." > > I understand that there are valid arguments against posting > guides, not the least of which including what I said above in 2). > Maybe this community doesn't want a posting guide. OK. But even > in that case we've at least agreed that we don't want a posting > guide and can get back to work. > > If we *do* decide that a minimal posting guide makes sense, then > it wouldn't be of much use unless there are those among us willing > to enforce it when individuals maliciously disregard the > agreement of the community. I would probably have been one of > those people had I known there was some consensus about what is > OK and what isn't. Now is the time to decide. > > > I have a mental "first draft" of things that could go in one, but > there's no point moving forward if there isn't a general feeling > that this would be something good to do. And, I'd like the Org > old-timers to feel free to take the reins and run with it if they > so choose. > > Cheers, > > -- > Jay > > [1] http://www.quotes.net/quote/2101 > [2] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2013-03/msg00449.html > [3] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2013-03/msg00747.html > > -- > G. Jay Kerns, Ph.D. > Youngstown State University > http://people.ysu.edu/~gkerns/ >