A banner day

A banner day

[Christopher Faylor]

Tonight, it occurred to me that I have banned three people in the
course of my tenure as admin for the cygwin mailing list.  All of them
repeatedly ignored my request to stop sending off-topic messages in one
form or another.  Usually, these people just couldn't stop sending
personal details of their lives but there was, IIRC, one person who
was somewhat abusive.

I gave each of these people 3 or 4 warnings before blocking them and,
when I did block them, it was with a sick feeling in my heart even
though I felt it was necessary.  Two of those people are back today and
sending email to cygwin lists with no problem.

Usually when I block someone, I block them from all of the cygwin lists.
But, tonight, I have chosen to only block Gary R.  Van Sickle from the
cygwin-apps list.  Maybe when I wake up tomorrow, I will conclude that
this was a big mistake because, after all, Gary does sometimes provide
useful technical feedback.

Tonight, however, it just seems to make sense that, in fairness to other
people who have been banned, there was no reason to have to suffer with
someone who repeatedly and determinedly breaks the mailing list rules.
I have refrained from this action for a long time because I knew that it
would seem like a non-objective personal response and, again, maybe when
I wake up tomorrow it will seem like that to me again.  But, we'll
see...

Anyway, if anyone has a problem with my decision, feel free to send me
private email (me+cygwin-apps at cgf dot cx) to discuss it.  I promise
to listen calmly and respond rationally as long as you don't use the
words "no personal offense intended".  I'll even listen if you think I
need to block myself from all cygwin lists since I know I'm no saint.
That's another thing that has kept my finger away from the "ban" button
for so long...

cgf

RE: A banner day

[Dave Korn]

On 20 April 2006 07:12, Christopher Faylor wrote:


> sending off-topic messages in one form or another.  

> I gave each of these people 3 or 4 warnings before blocking them and,

> Usually when I block someone, I block them from all of the cygwin lists.
> But, tonight, I have chosen to only block Gary R.  Van Sickle from the
> cygwin-apps list.  Maybe when I wake up tomorrow, I will conclude that
> this was a big mistake because, after all, Gary does sometimes provide
> useful technical feedback.

> Anyway, if anyone has a problem with my decision, 


  This post is not about the rightness or wrongness of that decision in this
particular case, but a suggestion for a half-way measure to use in such
circumstances: if the problem is repeated OT posting, and they refuse to
TITTTL it, which is the proper thing to do if you want to pursue an OT thread,
then you could just as well put all their posts on auto-redirect to this group
rather than ban them altogether.  This would only make sense as a temporary
measure but it would let people get it (whatever 'it' might be on that
particular occasion) out of their system and once the thread had finally died
away the auto-redirect could be turned off again.



    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Arbitraily Banning Maintainers From Mailing Lists Which They Need To Perform Their Duties

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

[Follow-ups set to cygwin@, since the arbitrary banning of maintainers, or
anyone else for that matter, from Cygwin mailing lists is most certainly of
grave concern to the Cygwin community at large.]

> From: Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:12 AM
> To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com
> Subject: A banner day
> 
> Tonight, it occurred to me that I have banned three people in 
> the course of my tenure as admin for the cygwin mailing list. 
>  All of them repeatedly ignored my request to stop sending 
> off-topic messages in one form or another.  Usually, these 
> people just couldn't stop sending personal details of their 
> lives but there was, IIRC, one person who was somewhat abusive.
> 
> I gave each of these people 3 or 4 warnings before blocking 
> them and, when I did block them, it was with a sick feeling 
> in my heart even though I felt it was necessary.  Two of 
> those people are back today and sending email to cygwin lists 
> with no problem.
> 
> Usually when I block someone, I block them from all of the 
> cygwin lists.
> But, tonight, I have chosen to only block Gary R.  Van Sickle 
> from the cygwin-apps list.  Maybe when I wake up tomorrow, I 
> will conclude that this was a big mistake because, after all, 
> Gary does sometimes provide useful technical feedback.
> 
> Tonight, however, it just seems to make sense that, in 
> fairness to other people who have been banned, there was no 
> reason to have to suffer with someone who repeatedly and 
> determinedly breaks the mailing list rules.
>
> I have refrained from this action for a long time because I 
> knew that it would seem like a non-objective personal 
> response and, again, maybe when I wake up tomorrow it will 
> seem like that to me again.  But, we'll see...
> 
> Anyway, if anyone has a problem with my decision, feel free 
> to send me private email (me+cygwin-apps at cgf dot cx) to 
> discuss it.  I promise to listen calmly and respond 
> rationally as long as you don't use the words "no personal 
> offense intended".  I'll even listen if you think I need to 
> block myself from all cygwin lists since I know I'm no saint.
> That's another thing that has kept my finger away from the 
> "ban" button for so long...
> 
> cgf

Let me see if I have the order of events straight here:

1.  You reply to one of my posts on cygwin-apps@ suggesting that the thread
be moved to a more appropriate list
[http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00109.html].  You however
neglect to change the followups accordingly [ibid., "Reply-to: cygwin-apps
at cygwin dot com"].

2.  I reply to your reply
[http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00112.html], but take care to
in fact set the followups properly, so that the thread will indeed get moved
to the more-appropriate list, i.e. cygwin-talk@ [ibid., "Reply-to:
<cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>"].

3.  You then reply to that reply - but not in the cygwin-talk@ list which I
had redirected the thread to.  Rather, you bring the thread /back/ into
cygwin-apps@, only to inform me that you are /banning/ me from that mailing
list [http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00113.html] for doing the
very thing YOU should have done in the previous message!  Furthermore, you
have also changed the followups of the thread /back/ to cygwin-apps@ [ibid.,
"Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com"]!

4.  You then post an announcement to cygwin-apps@ that, due to your decision
to ban me from cygwin-apps@, I have been, by definition, relieved of my
voluntary duties as mutt maintainer
[http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00115.html] and a new one is
required.  A minor point: one would think such a call would also go out to
cygwin@.

5.  Finally, you post the above to, of all places, /cygwin-talk@/.

Do I have the sequence of events correct?  I took considerable pains to get
the facts laid out as accurately and precisely as possible, but if I have
somehow made an error in the above I emplore you Mr. Faylor or anyone else
to correct this chronology.

Wow.  I have to admit, I'm having an especially hard time getting my mind
around #3 there.  What sort of thought process sees me redirecting a thread
to a more appropriate venue, decides to ban me from the orginal list for
doing so, and /then/ proceeds to redirect the conversation /right back to
where, by the agreement of both parties, it didn't belong/?

Beyond that, how is that /not/ the very transgression you baselessly accuse
/me/ of, only worse seeing as you had to manually do all that
"misthreading"?  And yet, you are not content to merely accuse, but
immediately pass summary judgement upon?!

I shall make no comment regarding your statement about "block[ing] myself
from all cygwin lists since I know I'm no saint".  It is irrelevant to the
issue at hand what value your posting presence may or may not provide to
others on these venues.  What this bizarre action of yours clearly does
however call into serious question is your fitness to serve in any offical
capacity concerning these mailing lists and the membership thereof.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

RE: Arbitraily Banning Maintainers From Mailing Lists Which They Need To Perform Their Duties

[Dave Korn]

On 20 April 2006 13:26, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

> [Follow-ups set to cygwin@, since the arbitrary banning of maintainers, or

  "Arbitrary" is not an accurate description of a ban that was done for a
clearly-defined reason.  Gary, you could have TITTTL'd the thread but you just
*had* to have the last word.  It's your own dumbass fault.  Stop whining and
take your medicine like a man.

> Let me see if I have the order of events straight here:

  Undoubtedly not.

> 1.  You reply to one of my posts on cygwin-apps@ suggesting that the thread
> be moved to a more appropriate list
> [http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00109.html].  You however
> neglect to change the followups accordingly [ibid., "Reply-to: cygwin-apps
> at cygwin dot com"].
> 
> 2.  I reply to your reply
> [http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00112.html], but take care to
> in fact set the followups properly, so that the thread will indeed get moved
> to the more-appropriate list, i.e. cygwin-talk@ [ibid., "Reply-to:
> <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>"].

  Like I say, you did that because you wanted to have the last word.  There is
no need to post a reply just to set the followup headers which after all - and
this is the crucial point here - ONLY APPLY TO THAT ONE POST ANYWAY.

  IOW, you added a superfluous post to the thread for the purported purpose of
setting the follow-up header of that very same - superfluous - post so that
any replies to the superfluous post will go to the right place.  This has no
effect on any other post in the thread or any replies to any other post in the
thread.  That's why the notion that you were somehow obliged to add just one
more post to the thread is specious nonsense and I fall back on the far more
likely theory that you wanted to self-aggrandize.  QED.

> 3.  You then reply to that reply - but not in the cygwin-talk@ list which I
> had redirected the thread to.  Rather, you bring the thread /back/ into
> cygwin-apps@, only to inform me that you are /banning/ me from that mailing
> list [http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00113.html] for doing the
> very thing YOU should have done in the previous message!  Furthermore, you
> have also changed the followups of the thread /back/ to cygwin-apps@ [ibid.,
> "Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com"]!

  However you count it, you were always one jump behind.  Once a post has gone
out from a list maintainer saying "This thread is offtopic for this list",
there's no need to add another post to the thread.  Full stop.

> Wow.  I have to admit, I'm having an especially hard time getting my mind
> around #3 there.

  Well, just try and grasp the fact that causality only ever operates
*forwards* in time, and it should be simpler to understand.  Oh, and try and
also grasp that the "Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps" header is added by default
to *EVERY* post to the list, because list netiquette is that replies should go
to the list, not to individuals.  Seeing the header in someone's post means
that they have *NOT* set any followup-to at all, not that they have
deliberately set it *to* the list.

  Look up the word "default" in any good dictionary for more info.

>  What sort of thought process sees me redirecting a thread
> to a more appropriate venue, 

  You weren't "redirecting a thread to a more appropriate venue".  The main
part of that thread, about the proposed X repackaging, needed to remain on the
apps list where it was.  The off-topic stuff needed to be TITTTL'd or just
dropped, pronto.  You posted again because you wanted to have the last word.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: A banner day

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 10:27:01AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 20 April 2006 07:12, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>sending off-topic messages in one form or another.
>
>>I gave each of these people 3 or 4 warnings before blocking them and,
>
>>Usually when I block someone, I block them from all of the cygwin
>>lists.  But, tonight, I have chosen to only block Gary R.  Van Sickle
>>from the cygwin-apps list.  Maybe when I wake up tomorrow, I will
>>conclude that this was a big mistake because, after all, Gary does
>>sometimes provide useful technical feedback.
>
>>Anyway, if anyone has a problem with my decision,
>
>This post is not about the rightness or wrongness of that decision in
>this particular case, but a suggestion for a half-way measure to use in
>such circumstances: if the problem is repeated OT posting, and they
>refuse to TITTTL it, which is the proper thing to do if you want to
>pursue an OT thread, then you could just as well put all their posts on
>auto-redirect to this group rather than ban them altogether.  This
>would only make sense as a temporary measure but it would let people
>get it (whatever 'it' might be on that particular occasion) out of
>their system and once the thread had finally died away the
>auto-redirect could be turned off again.

It's an interesting idea but it would involve a new facility in the
mailing list software.  I'll have to think about that.  There are one or
two things I've been meaning to add to it but I haven't felt
particularly motivated to do this sort of thing for a few months now.

And I still have that strange bzip2 problm on sourceware to track down...

cgf