|| ||Adam Williamson <awilliam-AT-redhat.com> |
|| ||Development discussions related to Fedora <devel-AT-lists.fedoraproject.org> |
|| ||Re: Reasons for hall monitoring |
|| ||Thu, 06 May 2010 02:23:55 +0100|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 16:01 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > Clarification please, how does redundancy fit under the Hall Monitor Policy?
> > The basis of the Hall Monitor Policy is:
> > 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. So
> > it doesn't seem to fall under the current policy. If "signal to noise" is
> > a valid reason for hall monitoring it should be added to the policy through
> > the appropriate process.
> * 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. When this is
> done the subject line of the message will be prefixed with
> [HALL-MONITORED] and a link to this wiki page is included in the message.
That doesn't read, to me, like it was written to mean 'hall monitors can
choose to close any thread at their own discretion'. To me it simply
reads like a process point, saying that 'when a thread looks like it
should be monitored *for one of the specified reasons*, hall monitors
can choose to send a 'thread closure' post rather than move straight to
an official warning'.
At least, that's how I always assumed it was intended when the policy
came in, and I'm not at all sure I'm okay with a policy which says 'hall
monitors can shut down any discussion they choose for any reason they
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
devel mailing list
to post comments)