Reasons for hall monitoring
henriquecsj at gmail.com
Fri May 7 04:05:41 UTC 2010
2010/5/6 Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com>
> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
> > On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 05:46:21PM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 23:22 +0200, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> >> > Dne 6.5.2010 12:28, Karel Zak napsal(a):
> >> > >> Thank you for pointing out yet another undemocratic policy passed by one of
> >> > >
> >> > > +1 The Hall Monitor Policy is cancer.
> >> >
> >> > +1000 it feels to me like in a bad old Communism when the open debate
> >> > was allowed only when it didn't touch the leading role of the Communist
> >> > Party. I really don't think anybody in this thread said anything so
> >> > sacrilegious that the thread should be terminated.
> >> 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
> > This all is your subjective opinion. There is not objective and
> > unbiased way how evaluate any discussion, it's unmeasurable.
> I don't agree. There are logical ways to measure this. e.g.
> N people participate in a thread.
> -> (N/2)+1 of them complains to the moderator
> -> the thread gets closed.
> But since the number of complaints in this case was 3 only, closing
> the thread did not make any sense.
I believe that these long discussions will end only when there is a
better way of communication (and interaction) between the various
contributors of the Fedora Project, Fedora Board and FESCO. Anything
that diminishes that sense of "we decide, you do."
Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior
More information about the devel