Re: Rules of discourse for the mailing lists
From: ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson)
> debian-devel is supposed to be a technical mailing list for
> technically competent people. It is also very high volume and with a
> high number of subscribers.
There is presently no requirement of technical competence to subscribe.
We might not listen very well to someone who has doubtful competence,
but they are welcome on the list.
> However, `treating others with respect' is far to vague to be a useful
> guideline.
Do you prefer the language I suggested later? It was "Don't ridicule,
deride, or taunt others." Definitions are appended to this message.
> I remember one notable occasion when a person I have a great deal of
> respect for was prevented from posting to the mailing lists for
> calling another developer an `idiot'. I remember wondering whether it
> would be a defence that they were an `idiot', and if not what the
> critic in question should have said instead.
He would have been well within his rights to say "I question your
competence in this area." Idiot is a technical term, indicating a
mental age not exceeding three years and requiring complete custodial
care. Calling someone that is a lot worse than questioning someone's
capability to make good decisions about systems programming.
In this particular case, I invited the offender back onto the list two
weeks later, but he decided his blood pressure would be better if he stayed
off of the list. I've tried working it both ways, and I don't find that the
list works any better without rules of discourse - indeed, things seem to go
better when I abide to them.
> 1. Shouldn't this discussion be on debian-policy ?
Eventually, yes. This is the list where we see the problem most, so I
figured they had a right to know.
> 2. How much of the traffic on debian-{devel,policy} is non-developers ?
Not enough to close it at this time. We have one problem poster whom I have
put on "digest mode" (one posting containing a concatenation of all of his
material for the day) rather than censoring him. I would prefer to err on
the side of open-ness if possible. Many developers have recently been
lobbying for less use of private lists, not more. I personally feel the
dynamics of the project work best when it is as open as possible. I'd hate
to see it become a cabal.
Ioannis is working on writing short and clear prose rather than the
flowery kind. He accepted _my_ call on that, and I wish others would
not give him any more of a hard time about it. When he posted
suggestions for project policy, I acted to encourage his initiative by
sending suggestions rather than snuffing him out. This is an important
thing to do in a volunteer project.
Thanks
Bruce
rid.i.cule
('rid-*-.ky{u:}(*)l)
Etymology: F or L; F, fr. L i[ridiculum] jest
n, the act of exposing to laughter: DERISION,
MOCKERY]
ridicule
vt, to make fun of: DERIDE
-- rid.i.cul.er, n
Synonyms: i[syn] RIDICULE, DERIDE, MOCK, TAUNT,
TWIT, RALLY mean to make an object of laughter.
RIDICULE] implies an often malicious belittling; DERIDE suggests
contemptuous and often bitter ridicule; MOCK implies scorn often
ironically expressed; TAUNT suggests jeeringly provoking insult
or challenge; TWIT is now usu. milder and more good-humored than
TAUNT; RALLY implies a light teasing or mocking without
malice
de.ride
(di-'r{i-}d)
Etymology: L i[derid{e-}re], fr. i[de-] + i[rid{e-}re] to laugh
1) vt, to laugh at contemptuously
2) vt, to subject to ridicule
syn. see ridicule; -- de.rid.er, n
-- de.rid.ing.ly, av
(-i{eng}-l{e-})
taunt
('t{o.}nt, 't{a:}nt)
Etymology: perh. fr. MF i[tenter] to try, tempt -- more at TEMPT
vt, to reproach or challenge in a mocking or insulting manner:
jeer at
syn. see ridicule; -- taunt.er, n
-- taunt.ing.ly, av
(-i{eng}-l{e-})
taunt
1) n, a sarcastic challenge or insult
i[archaic]
2) n, an object of reproach
taunt
Etymology: origin unknown
aj, very tall -- used of a mast
id.i.ot
('id-{e-}-*t)
Etymology: ME, fr. L i[idiota] ignorant person, fr. Gk [italic
idi{o-}t{e-}s] one in a private station, layman, ignorant person, fr.
i[idios] one's own, private; akin to L i[sed], i[se]
without, i[sui] of oneself
1) n, a person afflicted with idiocy
person having a mental age not exceeding three years and requiring#
complete custodial care
2) n, a silly or foolish person
syn. see fool; -- idiot, aj
id.i.ot.ic
(.id-{e-}-'{a:}t-ik)
aj, characterized by idiocy: FOOLISH
-- id.i.ot.i.cal, aj
(-i-k*l)
-- id.i.ot.i.cal.ly, av
(-i-k(*-)l{e-})
-- id.i.ot.i.cal.ness, n
(-i-k*l-n*s)
id.i.o.tism
Etymology: in sense 1, fr. MF i[idiotisme], fr. L i[idiotismus]
common speech, fr. Gk i[idi{o-}tismos], fr. [italic
idi{o-}t{e-}s]; in sense 2, fr. i[idiot]
('id-{e-}-*-.tiz-*m)
i[obs]
1) a) n, IDIOM
b) n, IDIOM
(-{e-}-*t-.iz-*m)
i[archaic]
2) n, IDIOCY
--
Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it?
Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html
Bruce Perens K6BP bruce@debian.org NEW PHONE NUMBER: 510-620-3502
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: