2016-09-16 19:15 GMT+02:00 Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx>:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:13:13 -0400
Striker Leggette <striker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09/16/2016 12:05 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Well, yes, but (aside from the Orig poster) everyone else is basing
> > their information on things that happened many years ago.
>
> It's still happening, just FYI:
>
> [Thursday, September 15, 2016] [11:16:26 AM EDT]
> <Southern_Gentlem> Groan, as always your lack of being responsible
> comes back to you eventually you can keep this on that you lock
> yourself out of the box [Thursday, September 15, 2016] [11:17:00 AM
> EDT] <Southern_Gentlem> we cant fix stupid
IMHO that is taken out of context.
He was talking to a user who had some particular/interesting security
cases that didn't make much sense. They were talking about a
hypothetical user in one of those cases, not the person he was talking
to. At least thats the way I read it... but I guess I will stop trying
to defend anyone and let them do it themselves.
> I think we need to realize that this happens all the time and not
> just 3+ years ago or during isolated incidents like the one that
> prompted this thread. While OPs themselves might simply find these
> types of statements to simply be informative or to "point the user in
> the right direction", collectively, the statements are abrasive.
>
> Not having any Fedora IRC SIG tickets open for negative feedback does
> not mean that the negative treatment is not happening.
Sure, but I disagree that it's as bad as people make out...
Anyhow, the council is of course free to redo anything they like.
I do hope they will make sure they have sufficient people available if
they decide to take over / replace the existing group.
kevin
_______________________________________________
council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Well, the Council will not take over this, but we need to make sure people are not scared and insulted/banned when they join our channels.
We have two actual examples, the original poster's one and gnokii's one, and they remember many other similar cases in the last years. Isolated? I don't think so, most of the users don't even know how to file a ticket to bring up the issue, they just go away and never come back. We cannot go over this problem again if we want more contributors, and if needed we should replace the actual OPs with new people who have more entusiasm. Moreover, I don't think contributor specific channels need any OPs, in these channels we have Infra people present and also some team leaders who can easily and very fast bring up a problem to who can take action.
IMO we don't need more OPs, the number is fine if they concentrate on the main problems (trolls, offensive people, users violating privacy, etc). We don't need any action from OPs for joining messages due to crappy Internet connections, because who is annoyed from that messages can easily silent them. I don't see any problem, let's not raise walls where we don't need them.
Finally, for any action OPs take, they should be polite and without any personal feelings. Specially when they take action against active contributors (FAS helps a lot here, also to OPs), because we risk to loose them.
Robert Mayr
(robyduck)
(robyduck)
_______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
