On 05/07/2010 03:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 17:46 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
> Normally, I'd be against it killing a thread, but the thread that
> started this discussion had already been done awhile back and this new
> thread added *nothing* new to the discussion. Frankly, it was more
> deserving to be on Slashdot more than the fedora-devel list. The Hall
> Monitors were totally justified in killing this one imo, and frankly if
> folks want more repetitive flame-bait threads like that I've got zero
> interest in staying subscribed to it.
I'm not actually particularly interested in whether this is true or not.
What worries me is that it was always my understanding, and I think the
understanding of others, that the hall monitoring policy does not grant
hall monitors the power to shut down threads they judge to be
repetitive. My understanding is it should only grant them the power to
shut down threads which violate the 'be excellent to each other' motto -
i.e., it's about the civility of the discussion, not the subject matter.
The problem with this distinction is that in some cases the very act of
bringing something up again *isn't* civil.
That being said, I think the Hall Monitor concept is pretty awful.
--
Peter
What we need is either less corruption, or more chances to
participate in it.