Reasons for hall monitoring

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 02:57:31PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 02:51:30AM -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > Forgive me if this goes out twice, I didn't see it show up in the archives
> > so I assume I missent it or something the first time.
> > 
> > Greetings Board,
> > 
> > The Fedora Hall Monitoring Policy doesn't currently encompass all the
> > actions taken by the Hall Monitors.  I think that the policy needs to be
> > clarified/added onto in order to encompass their current criteria or the
> > hall monitors need to be instructed that hteir current criteria is off base.
> > 
> > The thread that brought this to my attention has had three mentioned
> > reasons for being hall monitored:
> > 
> > 1) Redundancy of information in the thread
> > 2) Increasing number of posts from a single party
> > 3) Multiple complaints that people don't want to read the thread anymore
> > 
> > None of these are mentioned specifically in the Hall Monitor policy
> > currently.  There are two general pieces of the policy that I could see
> > being the basis of additional Hall Monitoring activity:
> > 
> > From the Background section which lays out the spirit of the policy:
> > 
> >   The Fedora Board has adopted a simple motto for general behavior as
> >   a member of the Fedora Project. It is simply "Be excellent to each other".
> > 
> > There doesn't seem to be any lack of courtesy present in the thread yet or
> > in the reasons given for hall monitoring the thread so this doesn't seem to
> > be the root justification.
> > 
> > In the Overall Procedures section, there's an entry that says this:
> > 
> >   Hall monitors are allowed to send 'thread closure' posts to aggressive or
> >   problematic mailing list threads to curtail issues before they become
> >   serious enough to warrant an official warning.
> > 
> > The definition of "aggressive and problematic" seems to be that the thread
> > seems to be leading to need to issue an official warning to an individual.
> > That's outlined here:
> > 
> >   They [hall monitors] will be subscribed to and monitor the selected
> >   mailing lists for instances of posts that are out of line with the "be
> >   excellent to each other" motto. This includes, but is not limited to:
> >   personal attacks, profanity directed at people or groups, serious threats
> >   of violence, or other things seen by the monitor as to be purposefully
> >   disrespectful. 
> > 
> > Which brings us back to the "Be excellent to each other" motto.
> > 
> > So here's some ideas on how to resolve this:
> > 
> > 1) Decide that these justifications fall outside of the Board's intention.
> > In addition to letting the current hall monitors know, it might be good to
> > add a clarification to the policy like:
> > 
> >   Although we hope the signal to noise ratio of the lists will increase due
> >   to this policy, the intent is primarily to keep discussions from veering
> >   off into personal attacks and negative comments to one another.  Remember
> >   "be excellent to each other" is what it's all about.
> > 
> > 2) Add increasing signal to noise as an explicit goal of Hall Monitors along
> > with some sample criteria.  This should probably be added to both the
> > Background and the Overall Procedures sections:
> > 
> > Insert between second and third paragraphs to the Background section:
> > 
> >   In addition to needing to have a communication channel that is a positive
> >   and supportive environment for people to express themselves we also strive
> >   to make our communications efficient so that people can more effectively
> >   process the communication that they do receive.  
> > 
> > Insert between first and second bullets in the Overall Procedures page:
> > 
> >   * Hall monitors will also look for cases where posts are not adding
> >     any new information to a discussion.  This includes but is not limited
> >     to:  Restating facts already stated in the current thread, trying to
> >     have the last word with another contributor, presenting old arguments as
> >     if they were new arguments, presenting old arguments as the basis for
> >     refuting a new argument or new idea, debating old issues because new
> >     people are in positions to make changes to rectify those issues.
> > 
> > 3) Add some policy to allow hall monitoring of threads that have too many
> > complaints.  I don't see how a sane policy about this really works as it's
> > something that just moves who can shout the loudest from the public mailing
> > lists to messages to the hall monitors (if done objectively) or introduces
> > a lot of bias based on what the hall monitors believe if done subjectively.
> > 
> > 
> > For the record, I would strongly favor option #1 as the others are taking us
> > too far into the realm of giving a few people the power to decide what is
> > and is not useful communication.
> 
> This was a thoughtful post, Toshio, thank you.
> 
> I can't speak for the other Board members but I do think there are
> senses in which we can be non-excellent to each other without using
> insults.  If our mailing lists stay cordial, but their content becomes
> increasingly redundant or repetitive, that also can contribute to a
> negative environment that pushes people away from communicating with
> each other.
> 
I think you're wrong here.  People post redundant information because they
think they're helping.  Helping is being excellent to each other.  This kind
of differing interpretation is why we need to clarify this one way or the
other.  Although I think that we don't want to go down the slope of
expanding what the hall monitors can be censoring it is better to have
a clear definition of this rather than leaving it open ended as to what
a hall monitor can choose to ban.

Please write up a proposal to replace my number 2 and ask that the Board
consider both my #1 and your proposal at tomorrow's meeting.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20100505/26acf822/attachment-0001.bin