Reasons for hall monitoring
pjones at redhat.com
Fri May 7 19:26:08 UTC 2010
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.
What we need is either less corruption, or more chances to
participate in it.
More information about the devel