From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp002.apm-internet.net (smtp002.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.221]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DAF1385700A for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 19:21:34 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 6DAF1385700A Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sandoe.co.uk Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=iain@sandoe.co.uk Received: (qmail 38133 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2021 19:21:33 -0000 X-APM-Out-ID: 16185144933813 X-APM-Authkey: 257869/1(257869/1) 2 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.212?) (81.138.1.83) by smtp002.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 15 Apr 2021 19:21:33 -0000 From: Iain Sandoe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:21:32 +0100 References: <20210414131843.GA4138043@thyrsus.com> <093dbfde-a7b5-a55c-8a03-3e82460bce67@acm.org> <82189248-2E7D-46FF-A0A4-7C3D79463D54@comcast.net> <20210415140057.GB51340@thyrsus.com> <6E1497BE-EF6F-4B31-9BAE-27D91C541804@comcast.net> To: GCC Development In-Reply-To: <6E1497BE-EF6F-4B31-9BAE-27D91C541804@comcast.net> Message-Id: <7EC5CBE6-1A1C-460E-9778-62B2463E579F@sandoe.co.uk> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05, BODY_8BITS, KAM_COUK, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, LIKELY_SPAM_BODY, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 19:21:36 -0000 Paul Koning wrote: >> On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote: >> >> ... >> responding in general to this part of the thread. >> >> * The GCC environment is not hostile, and has not been for the 15 or so >> years I’ve been part of the community. >> * We would notice if it became so, I’m not sure about the idea that the >> wool >> can be so easily pulled over our eyes. >> >> responding to the thread in general.. >> >> * Please could we try to seek consensus? >> >> - it is disappointing to see people treating this as some kind of >> point-scoring game >> when to those working on the compiler day to day it is far from a game. > > I'm not sure what the consensus is you're looking for. Let us start from the observations above and try to add in the issues that have arisen in the recent threads - and end with a proposal.... * One could be glib and suggest that discussions about governance and project process should be directed to a different (new) mailing list - but that does not solve the problem(s) it just moves them. - (however, it might still be valuable to folks who wish to have an automatic filter for these topics or have no interest in them). * I think we are all clear about the primary role of the gcc@ and gcc-patches@ lists - primarily technical discussion about current and future projects and patch review respectively. - we have a history of politely redirecting usage questions to the help list (while often answering them anyway), likewise with the irc channel. - I believe we also have a history of encouraging input and discussing the technical issues (reasonably) calmly. - to the best of my recollection I have never seen an idea excluded on any basis than technical content. * Without a specific list to process input on governance and project process, this list is a reasonable choice. ——— The observations above, copied from my first email, together with a belief that most of the current and potential contributor to GCC would prefer to function in a constructive environment, lead to the following proposition: * that, since the lists are generally constructive without additional management, (OK. there are occasional heated technical debates), it implies that this community by-and-large is already able to function without heavy-handed moderation. * It has been postulated that there could be valued technical input from people who have difficulty in interacting in a constructive manner (through no fault of their own). * no-one else would be making valued input, either they would be a spammer or intentionally acting in a destructive manner. - Let us propose that someone capable of working on a complex system such as a compiler would be able to read and act on a set of guidelines. - ergo, I propose that we have a set of guidelines to which someone who is being disruptive can be pointed. * (Probably?) no-one has any issue with a spammer being thrown off the list, for which I guess there is a process already - it would be reasonable to expect that genuine contributors (even with difficulties) would make an effort to follow guidelines - and that someone who was making no effort to do so is not really any different from a spammer. Of course, guidelines require debate (but I doubt that the right set would be much different from the obvious for this group). is seems to me that most of the strife in the last two weeks comes from a few key things: - attacking the person delivering a message rather than debating the message - introducing topics spurious and unrelated to the actual debate - trying to equate the process of this project with party or international Politics. === So .. in summary: 1/ I propose that we do have written guidelines, to which someone behaving in a non-constructive manner can be pointed. 2/ if those guidelines *are the consensus* of this group and someone is unable to follow them (given some reasonable chance to amend as is customary in matters such as employment law here, at least), then they are treated no differently from any other spam. * although one might lose some notionally valuable input, the judgement here is that the net benefit of such input is negative. 3/ I would recommend on the basis of another online community (about music) to which I belong, to suggest that Politics (party or international) and Religion are better discussed in other forums and are exceedingly unlikely to affect a technical decision on the progress of GCC - such discussions almost never end well. (I’d believe that any valid exception to the need to heed some political situation would be readily recognised by the participants here). 4/ It is likely that we can extract much of the basic guidelines from any other writing on communicating constructively - after all, it is how 99.99% of this list traffic is managed without intervention. my 0.02GBP only, "patches welcome", Iain