emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[O] posting guide?


From: Jay Kerns
Subject: [O] posting guide?
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:13:08 -0400

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/



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]