| Summary: | Retirement team needs reliable forum activity stats for staff members | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Infrastructure | Reporter: | Pacho Ramos <pacho> |
| Component: | Forums | Assignee: | Forum Moderators <forum-mods> |
| Status: | IN_PROGRESS --- | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | ago, chiitoo, infra-bugs, john_r_graham, kallamej, mgorny, neddyseagoon, pacho |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| See Also: | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99310 | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Pacho Ramos
2018-03-10 18:04:40 UTC
forums: maybe you can have a helper script for undertakers & infra usage, that given a forums username/id, gives some forums-wide stats reliably? we have it for bugzilla already (you have to be logged in with a minimum set of credentials, and it doesn't expose anything sensitive, just bug numbers & dates). I think you missed my main point that whatever technical means you try to use, it is a poor metric either way. Just poke us on IRC. The point is something that can be automated, just like the existing scripts, so that active people don't even need to be pinged on email or IRC. I've updated the topic to point out it's more general than just forum-mods. Well, it affects mostly to staff members, for developers with commit access it's ok, but for staff... it is much harder to measure their activity FTR there's no such thing as 'staff' for a long time, everyone is a developer regardless of which bits they have on their account. (In reply to Michael Palimaka (kensington) from comment #5) > FTR there's no such thing as 'staff' for a long time, everyone is a > developer regardless of which bits they have on their account. True. We have developers with or without repo/gentoo.git access. (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #4) > Well, it affects mostly to staff members, for developers with commit access > it's ok, but for staff... it is much harder to measure their activity This is why trying to find automated ways to determine activity of people without repo/gentoo.git access is hard and in the end might just be pointless. How does anyone propose we evaluate trustees "developers"? Should we measure how many posts they make to the mls? How many commits they make to trustees repo? How many proposals they present in the trustees meetings? For comparison, trying to measure forum-mods activity solely on number of forums posts is a bad idea. A forum mod might be active by acting on the reports thread, by being active on banning / unbanning users, replying to the forum-mods e-mail, by working on the phpbb code / porting. That's why our old policy was clear that the best way to determine developers without repo/gentoo.git activity was to contact the leads of their groups / projects and ask about it. (In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #6) > This is why trying to find automated ways to determine activity of people > without repo/gentoo.git access is hard and in the end might just be > pointless. further specific to this below. > How does anyone propose we evaluate trustees "developers"? Should we measure > how many posts they make to the mls? How many commits they make to trustees > repo? How many proposals they present in the trustees meetings? See commits below. > For comparison, trying to measure forum-mods activity solely on number of > forums posts is a bad idea. A forum mod might be active by acting on the > reports thread, by being active on banning / unbanning users, replying to > the forum-mods e-mail, by working on the phpbb code / porting. Any actions on forums itself should be accessible as an audit-level log, just like Bugzilla. The code should show up in Git and be tracked there (the old CVS+SVN activity tracker didn't care what repo, just that you committed something) > That's why our old policy was clear that the best way to determine > developers without repo/gentoo.git activity was to contact the leads of > their groups / projects and ask about it. The point of the automation is to weed out the early false positives for people who are active [but in a way that is not easily visible], not to replace asking. (In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #6) > How does anyone propose we evaluate trustees "developers"? Should we measure > how many posts they make to the mls? How many commits they make to trustees > repo? How many proposals they present in the trustees meetings? This is off-topic. However, if you really want to know then I'd say leave that to the voters. Once someone stops being a Trustee, he either needs to start doing something else or we retire him. Simple as that. > That's why our old policy was clear that the best way to determine > developers without repo/gentoo.git activity was to contact the leads of > their groups / projects and ask about it. And how often should that happen? Should we ask about everyone each month, just in case? (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #8) > (In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #6) > > How does anyone propose we evaluate trustees "developers"? Should we measure > > how many posts they make to the mls? How many commits they make to trustees > > repo? How many proposals they present in the trustees meetings? > > This is off-topic. However, if you really want to know then I'd say leave > that to the voters. Once someone stops being a Trustee, he either needs to > start doing something else or we retire him. Simple as that. No, this is "right on topic". You've misunderstood me because I wasn't even talking about Trustees nor Council members (the same logic would apply), but to officers of the Foundation. IIRC, we've stipulated that anyone not already a developer that wants to serve as an Officer, needs to be recruited. So my questions were related to anyone serving as an officer. If, as a Gentoo developer, one filling that role can be retired, how should we evaluate their activity. Simple, automated checks for "number" of actions, clearly don't work when someone is filling roles like PR, community relations, forums or Foundation officers. (In reply to Robin Johnson from comment #7) > (In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #6) > > For comparison, trying to measure forum-mods activity solely on number of > > forums posts is a bad idea. A forum mod might be active by acting on the > > reports thread, by being active on banning / unbanning users, replying to > > the forum-mods e-mail, by working on the phpbb code / porting. > Any actions on forums itself should be accessible as an audit-level log, > just like Bugzilla. The code should show up in Git and be tracked there (the > old CVS+SVN activity tracker didn't care what repo, just that you committed > something) I'm not sure we have a way to audit those actions at the moment. I've never looked at the code / db to verify if that info gets recorded. Changes to the code should be done through the git repo, but afaik, all the work has been done on local environments, so I don't know if anyone has pushed any changes to the repository yet. > > That's why our old policy was clear that the best way to determine > > developers without repo/gentoo.git activity was to contact the leads of > > their groups / projects and ask about it. > The point of the automation is to weed out the early false positives for > people who are active [but in a way that is not easily visible], not to > replace asking. I understand and agree with your point, but that's not what some members doing retirement "seem" to be doing. It feels like some are trying to push the automated stuff and avoiding (or refusing) to talk to others - I've been arguing that is a mistake. What non-sense accusations are you throwing here at your fellow developers? All undertakers were doing are evaluating developers who have no apparent activity, and *mailing them*. If developer has a problem answering 'yes, I'm active, thanks for checking', then I have no good answer to that. I should also point out that doing this exactly bumps their Bugzilla activity, effectively providing automated way of confirming their activity for few months to come. (In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #9) > (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #8) > > (In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #6) > > > How does anyone propose we evaluate trustees "developers"? Should we measure > > > how many posts they make to the mls? How many commits they make to trustees > > > repo? How many proposals they present in the trustees meetings? > > > > This is off-topic. However, if you really want to know then I'd say leave > > that to the voters. Once someone stops being a Trustee, he either needs to > > start doing something else or we retire him. Simple as that. > > No, this is "right on topic". > You've misunderstood me because I wasn't even talking about Trustees nor > Council members (the same logic would apply), but to officers of the > Foundation. IIRC, we've stipulated that anyone not already a developer that > wants to serve as an Officer, needs to be recruited. > So my questions were related to anyone serving as an officer. If, as a > Gentoo developer, one filling that role can be retired, how should we > evaluate their activity. Simple, automated checks for "number" of actions, > clearly don't work when someone is filling roles like PR, community > relations, forums or Foundation officers. 1) It is not Gentoo policy to retire active developers. 2) To avoid querying whether every developer is active every interval, we develop automation. 3) The automation will likely not cover everyone, but the more developers are covered, the less work it is for the retirement team. 4) For developers the automation doesn't cover, retirement should email them and ask about their activity on their bug. > > (In reply to Robin Johnson from comment #7) > > (In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #6) > > > For comparison, trying to measure forum-mods activity solely on number of > > > forums posts is a bad idea. A forum mod might be active by acting on the > > > reports thread, by being active on banning / unbanning users, replying to > > > the forum-mods e-mail, by working on the phpbb code / porting. > > Any actions on forums itself should be accessible as an audit-level log, > > just like Bugzilla. The code should show up in Git and be tracked there (the > > old CVS+SVN activity tracker didn't care what repo, just that you committed > > something) > > I'm not sure we have a way to audit those actions at the moment. I've never > looked at the code / db to verify if that info gets recorded. > Changes to the code should be done through the git repo, but afaik, all the > work has been done on local environments, so I don't know if anyone has > pushed any changes to the repository yet. > > > > That's why our old policy was clear that the best way to determine > > > developers without repo/gentoo.git activity was to contact the leads of > > > their groups / projects and ask about it. > > The point of the automation is to weed out the early false positives for > > people who are active [but in a way that is not easily visible], not to > > replace asking. > > I understand and agree with your point, but that's not what some members > doing retirement "seem" to be doing. It feels like some are trying to push > the automated stuff and avoiding (or refusing) to talk to others - I've been > arguing that is a mistake. So ideally the retirement bug has the audit trail (like which emails were sent when.) If you are suggesting that retirement people either fail to follow the policy (and retire people without talking to them) or worse, fabricate the audit trail intentionally (by claiming they sent emails but didn't) then I'd be interested in helping stamp out that sort of behavior. Otherwise the "same old policy" of asking people applies; and so no changes to that are being recommended. Am I misunderstanding? Given that no action has been taken for 2.5yr here and Forum moderators are the larger non-commit access developer group, I would like to request Forums team once again to provide a viable metric for activity of Forum moderator-developers. The metric must be sufficient for the Undertakers team to clearly determine that the moderator has been doing work justifying the Gentoo developer status recently and for anyone to audit Undertakers' work transparently. In particular, the activity feed must: 1. Provide a quantitative record of the relevant recent moderator's work (i.e. just a single 'most recent' date wouldn't be sufficient). 2. Either include only relevant actions, or be easily filtered to relevant actions (i.e. a generic activity log that's 99% chit-chat does not qualify). 3. Provide means of auditing these actions, either publicly visible or available to the Undertakers team and the Council. I would like to request that such an activity log is prepared for us until 2021-01-01. Otherwise, I would like to request the Council to cancel GLEP 38 and remove the special privileges granted to Forum moderators. Oh, and just to be clear, this doesn't really have to be automated. I'm entirely fine with moderators themselves or the Forum admin maintaining an manually-written activity log and periodically emailing it to us. I don't believe anything has changed. It still seems like a bad idea to set some minimum activity goals for work where less activity might actually be a good thing. There often are times when someone finds nothing to act upon, simply because someone else already got to it, and I don't think we're going to start leaving spam hanging around so that everyone can do some hammering. You might like to think that the less active people are useless and need to go, then, but they were recruited for a reason. It's better to have them around, as much as they can, than not have them around at all. Is sending e-mails to ask if a person is still around really not enough? I don't understand the apparent need to have as few developers as possible (I do understand retiring people who are unable to respond to e-mails and everything for a time, with no one aware of their situation). Perhaps there are some policies that could use some changes with regards to developers who are not just working on maintaining ebuilds. I don't understand the apparent need for Forum moderators to exercise full privileges of Gentoo developers without actually being required to perform at least similar amount of work. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #12) > Given that no action has been taken for 2.5yr here and Forum moderators are > the larger non-commit access developer group, I would like to request Forums > team once again to provide a viable metric for activity of Forum > moderator-developers. The metric must be sufficient for the Undertakers > team to clearly determine that the moderator has been doing work justifying > the Gentoo developer status recently and for anyone to audit Undertakers' > work transparently. > Given that this was such a high priority for you that it you still have not answered never bothered to respond to my inquires regarding this at the time, one wonders why it is suddenly an issue now. Similarly stalled discussion with robbat2 was only restarted within roughly the past 24 hours, despite having been dropped on the floor at a similar time to the questions having been posed to you. > In particular, the activity feed must: > > 1. Provide a quantitative record of the relevant recent moderator's work > (i.e. just a single 'most recent' date wouldn't be sufficient). > Significant portions of moderator activity are not logged, in part given the lack of practical need for such logging, and no automated logging for all such activities is available as a maintained add-on from any upstream for the currently used forum software. > 2. Either include only relevant actions, or be easily filtered to relevant > actions (i.e. a generic activity log that's 99% chit-chat does not qualify). > There is no practical automated way to "filter" down to only "relevant" actions from a gross log of all activity, E.g. posts made could e anything from purely conversational, to noting removed spam, to issuing of a public warning to a user. > 3. Provide means of auditing these actions, either publicly visible or > available to the Undertakers team and the Council. > A public log would likely be impractical, especially if things like specific information regarding removed spam were to be included. > I would like to request that such an activity log is prepared for us until > 2021-01-01. Otherwise, I would like to request the Council to cancel GLEP > 38 and remove the special privileges granted to Forum moderators. Good job on setting a productive tone, explicitly describing your own request as blackmail goes a long way to demonstrating that your request is grounded in some productive cause. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #13) > Oh, and just to be clear, this doesn't really have to be automated. I'm > entirely fine with moderators themselves or the Forum admin maintaining an > manually-written activity log and periodically emailing it to us. As noted, even a manually written log would necessarily be incomplete, not to mention the ludicrous volume of make-work that compiling such logs would entail. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #15) > I don't understand the apparent need for Forum moderators to exercise full > privileges of Gentoo developers without actually being required to perform > at least similar amount of work. Requiring some specific volume of work, as opposed to value of work, could be considered to be your foundational problem there. Beyond that, adding make-work to already time intensive volunteer labor is effectively doomed to do nothing but reduce the amount of available free labor volunteered to do productive work, at very least because of the added make-work taking up time which could otherwise be used in a productive manner. Though I suppose that the time spent filing additional make-work would count toward the overall time spent doing volunteer labor and thus better satisfy your need for additional time wastage. Given the, admittedly overdue, pending upgrade to a newer version of the forum software, adding automated means before such upgrade seems to be a poor investment of resources. A quick check did not find any such audit-trail software, add-on or native, for the coming upgraded version. And any practical manual log would necessarily be incomplete, and quite frankly seems nothing more than a waste of time given internal activity tracking done without the need for audit logs which would be intensive investments of time and/or labor. > Requiring some specific volume of work, as opposed to value of work, [...]
...just like all your messages?
Please state clearly whether you are going to fulfill the request or not, so we can stop the charade.
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #17) > > Requiring some specific volume of work, as opposed to value of work, [...] > > ...just like all your messages? > > Please state clearly whether you are going to fulfill the request or not, so > we can stop the charade. from includes/constants.php 34 // User Levels <- Do not change the values of USER or ADMIN 35 define('DELETED', -1); 36 define('ANONYMOUS', -1); 37 38 define('USER', 0); 39 define('ADMIN', 1); 40 define('MOD', 2); As a first pass, you can just look at whether moderators even use the forums. "select username,user_lastvisit from phpbb_users where user_level > 0;" And you get a dump of all the admins and moderators and when they last visited the forum. One thing you see immediately is that there are moderators and admins that have not logged into the forums for some time (e.g. years) but most of the people have logged in recently. For example if we look at a year ago: antarus@antarus-h8-1437c:~$ date -d 'last year' +%s 1573724246 MariaDB [gentoo_forums]> select username,user_lastvisit from phpbb_users where user_level > 0 and user_lastvisit < 1573724246; +--------------+----------------+ | username | user_lastvisit | +--------------+----------------+ | Finswimmer | <redacted> | | jmbsvicetto | <redacted> | | Laitr Keiows | <redacted> | | Akkara | <redacted> | +--------------+----------------+ Most other folks have logged in more recently. Obviously logging in is not 'moderation' but I find it difficult to say "hey these people are moderating" if they never login to the forums, and they need to login to read some of the forums (including the moderator and admin forums.) Plus this is a query that works today and is better than nothing. -A (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #17) > > Requiring some specific volume of work, as opposed to value of work, [...] > > ...just like all your messages? > Given that I am the one advocating accounting for the value of work done and you are insisting upon accounting merely on volume, are you telling me that I am being overly terse? > Please state clearly whether you are going to fulfill the request or not, so > we can stop the charade. Given that I have explained that your "request" in this "charade" is, as it is stated, neither technically nor by way of manual execution feasible to actually comply with (both facts of which you were doubtlessly already aware); it seems to be rather belaboring the point to tell you that such unattainable compliance will not be produced. But since you need to be told that the impossible will not be delivered unto you for the mere cost of explicitly attempting blackmail I will, once again, restate that you are insisting upon quantifying practically unquantifiable values, demanding "relevant" content when such relevance is commonly ambiguous with specific regard to moderation activities, and demanding auditing which is neither available nor necessarily actually indicative (and should not be public). Even maintaining a log of all actions undertaken which changed the state of a post or user would be an incomplete metric by which to judge activity. According to undertakers policy, a developer can make less than one commit per year while retaining their commit access, yet you claim to require full auditing of activities of a specific subset of those who do not necessarily have any commit access at all. This contrast seems rather peculiarly targeted. Bear in mind that you have at no point bothered inquiring as to what metrics would actually be available in an automated manner, which is further evidence of bad faith on your part. If you want something which cannot be provided, demanding it regardless is illogical at best. Instead, attempting to find out what can actually be provided, or even introspectively determining why you wanted what you wanted and seeking attainable means to otherwise satisfactory ends would be viable paths to pursue. Further, you have at no point demonstrated functional inadequacy of reporting to undertakers, instead demanding without basis to be given work already done by others while demonstrating an active lack of understanding how that work would be done in the subject domain. You demand a specific solution to a problem not in evidence, and that solution is worse than the status quo in every way. So no, your "request" will not be fulfilled in the manner in which it was stated. Your "charade" can stop now. In order to facilitate further discussion, I would like to request that you limit your messages only to necessary words, in simple English language that can be easily understood by people whose first language isn't English. Hi Micael(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #12) > Given that no action has been taken for 2.5yr here and Forum moderators are > the larger non-commit access developer group, I would like to request Forums > team once again to provide a viable metric for activity of Forum > moderator-developers. The metric must be sufficient for the Undertakers > team to clearly determine that the moderator has been doing work justifying > the Gentoo developer status recently and for anyone to audit Undertakers' > work transparently. > > In particular, the activity feed must: > > 1. Provide a quantitative record of the relevant recent moderator's work > (i.e. just a single 'most recent' date wouldn't be sufficient). > > 2. Either include only relevant actions, or be easily filtered to relevant > actions (i.e. a generic activity log that's 99% chit-chat does not qualify). > > 3. Provide means of auditing these actions, either publicly visible or > available to the Undertakers team and the Council. I'm not quite in sync on this. We can provide such a log for typical actions. We will not be able to provide specific moderation actions (because the logs don't exist.) I'm suggesting that this is sufficient. I'm happy to: - Retire mods who never log into the forums - Retire mods who never post - Retire mods who never PM anyone on the forums We can produce an action log for each moderator that: e.g. shows their last 10 actions of these types and their dates, so we can establish some record of their activity. If this log is sufficient, lets do it. We can also consider doing it for other properties (e.g. wiki edits have a similar log we could use, and this log exists for bugzilla already.) What I want to avoid is twofold: - This impression that goalposts are moved every year to tighten the noose on developers. Maybe this is your intent, maybe not, but I think many community members feel this way. - This impression that non-commit developers get harassed because: (1) Unlike commits, there is no report of their activity. (2) When activity reports are proposed, they are often not deemed 'a good enough presentation' of activity. (3) This leads to these folks feeling bugged as they are under constant threat of "report your activity or we will retire you." > > I would like to request that such an activity log is prepared for us until > 2021-01-01. Otherwise, I would like to request the Council to cancel GLEP > 38 and remove the special privileges granted to Forum moderators. I'm looking for guidance from you as to whether the above log (for forums) is sufficient to report activity (it seems to be what we use for bugs already.) If you feel it is not; I'm happy to meet with you about it, or escalate it up if you don't think a meeting will be productive. -A (In reply to Alec Warner from comment #21) > I'm happy to: > - Retire mods who never log into the forums > - Retire mods who never post > - Retire mods who never PM anyone on the forums This is pure nonsense. So now any user who randomly chit-chats on Forums is supposed to be promoted to developer? Or only these special snowflakes who belong to the 'old group of buddies' who were recruited once and can't be touched unless they graciously permit us to? > We can produce an action log for each moderator that: e.g. shows their last > 10 actions of these types and their dates, so we can establish some record > of their activity. If this log is sufficient, lets do it. We can also > consider doing it for other properties (e.g. wiki edits have a similar log > we could use, and this log exists for bugzilla already.) That's what I've been asking for. What has changed that it suddenly became possible? > What I want to avoid is twofold: > - This impression that goalposts are moved every year to tighten the noose > on developers. Maybe this is your intent, maybe not, but I think many > community members feel this way. This is what we get when people keep cheating. Either that, or we arbitrarily retire people which is considered even worse. Forum mods are a large group that has mostly avoided communication with any other Gentoo group. They were also demanding the absolutely right to decide who goes in or out, and they have proven that they don't even track whether their members are active. Actually, 10 actions don't seem much. What is that like, 10 minutes of work a month? Do you seriously consider this equivalent to other developers who spent hours a week? (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #22) > (In reply to Alec Warner from comment #21) > > I'm happy to: > > - Retire mods who never log into the forums > > - Retire mods who never post > > - Retire mods who never PM anyone on the forums > > This is pure nonsense. So now any user who randomly chit-chats on Forums is > supposed to be promoted to developer? Or only these special snowflakes who > belong to the 'old group of buddies' who were recruited once and can't be > touched unless they graciously permit us to? I'm not sure your understand (but see below.) > > > We can produce an action log for each moderator that: e.g. shows their last > > 10 actions of these types and their dates, so we can establish some record > > of their activity. If this log is sufficient, lets do it. We can also > > consider doing it for other properties (e.g. wiki edits have a similar log > > we could use, and this log exists for bugzilla already.) > > That's what I've been asking for. What has changed that it suddenly became > possible? The action log would contain: - Last N actions: includes PM, posts, logins. We can discuss N (its not a technical limitation.) Its not specific to moderation (because again there is no way to know.) does that clarify from the above or not? > > > What I want to avoid is twofold: > > - This impression that goalposts are moved every year to tighten the noose > > on developers. Maybe this is your intent, maybe not, but I think many > > community members feel this way. > > This is what we get when people keep cheating. Either that, or we > arbitrarily retire people which is considered even worse. Forum mods are a > large group that has mostly avoided communication with any other Gentoo > group. They were also demanding the absolutely right to decide who goes in > or out, and they have proven that they don't even track whether their > members are active. So once again we're back to the idea that Forum teams is about logging in to the Forums in order to chat. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #23) > Actually, 10 actions don't seem much. What is that like, 10 minutes of work > a month? Do you seriously consider this equivalent to other developers who > spent hours a week? So 10 was arbitrary, I think the point is to understand some kind of contribution pattern. So contribution patterns are like "did 50 things, but all of them on a single weekend over a year; looks like they are not a regular contributor." In ebuilds it would be like "does 1 commit a quarter to stay a dev." These are patterns I'd ..I'm not saying I'd advocate for retiring those developers, but I at least understand that argument; these folks do not contribute on a regular basis. I don't expect contributors to all contribute at the same rate, in the same way, etc. If I could maintain 1000 packages with 10 minutes of time a month, I mean more power to me! If the forums folks keep the forums well running with only 10 minutes of work...why wouldn't we keep them on as developers? But I'd expect a lot of commits (for ebuilds) and many actions (on forums) even for 10m of work! -A (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #25) > So once again we're back to the idea that Forum teams is about logging in to > the Forums in order to chat. Is it an imperfect indicator? Sure. But I don't feel like you are up to meeting in the middle on this (its better than what we have, we already retired some mods based on this information, etc.) I feel like you are acting like perfect is the enemy of progress and my concern about that is it that it will lead to all the forum-mods resigning because they are constantly threatened with retirement. If you don't feel like this log is useful, as I said I'm happy to escalate up. -A (In reply to Alec Warner from comment #26) > (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #23) > > Actually, 10 actions don't seem much. What is that like, 10 minutes of work > > a month? Do you seriously consider this equivalent to other developers who > > spent hours a week? > > So 10 was arbitrary, I think the point is to understand some kind of > contribution pattern. So contribution patterns are like "did 50 things, but > all of them on a single weekend over a year; looks like they are not a > regular contributor." In ebuilds it would be like "does 1 commit a quarter > to stay a dev." These are patterns I'd ..I'm not saying I'd advocate for > retiring those developers, but I at least understand that argument; these > folks do not contribute on a regular basis. > > I don't expect contributors to all contribute at the same rate, in the same > way, etc. If I could maintain 1000 packages with 10 minutes of time a month, > I mean more power to me! If the forums folks keep the forums well running > with only 10 minutes of work...why wouldn't we keep them on as developers? > But I'd expect a lot of commits (for ebuilds) and many actions (on forums) > even for 10m of work! It's always a problem of individual judgement. There is a major difference between someone who contributes little because of little time or problems or whatever, and someone who is making one version bump every 3 months just to troll undertakers. You could argue that it can't be proven but often it is in plain sight. Undertakers have interacted with a large number of developers. What I've learned during that time, is that the more aggressively someone responds to our mails, the more likely is that that person should actually be retired. But instead of retiring and improving the health of the community, we end up inventing more rules and the toxic people invent more loopholes and throw more accusations. Of course, you can argue theory a lot. But how am I supposed to feel about someone who has practically zero public activity on Forums and sends tons of mail on how he's active in Gentoo by sending mail that he's unhappy with Gentoo (why he's even still in Gentoo?). (In reply to Alec Warner from comment #27) > I feel like you are acting like perfect is the enemy of progress and my > concern about that is it that it will lead to all the forum-mods resigning > because they are constantly threatened with retirement. If you don't feel > like this log is useful, as I said I'm happy to escalate up. Why would they? Some of them have already replied with sufficient data, and were really nice and understanding. Really, if you are actually working towards Gentoo you shouldn't have a big issue proving it given 12 months of time. I'm aware of only one who has focused on trying to drown undertakers in useless argument instead, and I don't really understand why you're trying hard to support such a toxic person. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #29) > (In reply to Alec Warner from comment #27) > > I feel like you are acting like perfect is the enemy of progress and my > > concern about that is it that it will lead to all the forum-mods resigning > > because they are constantly threatened with retirement. If you don't feel > > like this log is useful, as I said I'm happy to escalate up. > > Why would they? Some of them have already replied with sufficient data, and > were really nice and understanding. Really, if you are actually working > towards Gentoo you shouldn't have a big issue proving it given 12 months of > time. > > I'm aware of only one who has focused on trying to drown undertakers in > useless argument instead, and I don't really understand why you're trying > hard to support such a toxic person. Hi, This bug shows how you don't understand what we do as Forum moderators/admins. The way you want KPIS is felt (at least for me) as bullying and administrative work, and other comments see us as "cheaters". I don't see any sign of trust or understanding for our work. I didnt't know that you have to decide how we have to work and that we need to be "productive". This is a bad managment method. And what's a good management method? Accepting a bunch of people into the project, not hearing from them for 10 years, then hearing 'yes, we're still active', 'you don't understand how we work and we won't tell you', 'we will decide when we're no longer active'. That's pretty much the most what I've gotten from the Forums team as a whole. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #31) > And what's a good management method? Accepting a bunch of people into the > project, not hearing from them for 10 years, then hearing 'yes, we're still > active', 'you don't understand how we work and we won't tell you', 'we will > decide when we're no longer active'. That's pretty much the most what I've > gotten from the Forums team as a whole. Can you please change your point of view? If the forums team seams reply as a whole, can't you imagine we could perhaps have some good points you need to take into account? If you persist, I suggest you to disband all of us. (In reply to Xavier Miller from comment #32) > If you persist, I suggest you to disband all of us. I suppose that would be fair to people who put a lot of work to provide user support on IRC and various other media and who do not get special developer status. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #33) > (In reply to Xavier Miller from comment #32) > > If you persist, I suggest you to disband all of us. > > I suppose that would be fair to people who put a lot of work to provide user > support on IRC and various other media and who do not get special developer > status. So we don't do anything. That's enough for me. Bye. (In reply to Alec Warner from comment #27) > > I feel like you are acting like perfect is the enemy of progress and my > concern about that is it that it will lead to all the forum-mods resigning > because they are constantly threatened with retirement. There's already few people who have been global moderators for years but never got recruited into full devs. Not sure in what sort of violation of GLEP-38 that is, but looks like it's possible to moderate forums without developer status. Not trying to discuss this subject in here, but could the "Staffer" status be brought back, with less privileges but also less monitoring by the undertakers? Say, reduced amount to 1-2 times a year, with minimal activity required to keep Staffer status. (What was the reason it changed in the first place?) (Also this matter at hand should be resolved with those already recruited) (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #31) > And what's a good management method? Accepting a bunch of people into the > project, not hearing from them for 10 years, then hearing 'yes, we're still > active', 'you don't understand how we work and we won't tell you', 'we will > decide when we're no longer active'. That's pretty much the most what I've > gotten from the Forums team as a whole. After reading some posts here and in mailing list that look to point with the finger to Michal for this conflict, I only wanted to clarify that I agree completely with this. I also felt the same when I was doing the Undertakers work more actively in the past. I even see I opened this bug report (three years ago!) after being unable to track their activity ... and I see there is still no way to track it... At some point I lost the energy to battle with this and with other people trying to cheat the retirement system as they were only causing me to get angrier each time I was reading mails and spending lots of time with that. But the problem exists, it is still there... even if it has a hard solution. Maybe one option would be to clarify what requirements are needed to become a developer as forums member and ensure that requirements are still fulfilled periodically. But of course... it's something in the middle... I don't think it's possible to find a real solution. (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #36) [...] > After reading some posts here and in mailing list that look to point with > the finger to Michal for this conflict, I only wanted to clarify that I > agree completely with this. I meant I agree with Michal's position here... and don't agree with personalizing on him this conflict... it's a conflict that anyone doing undertakers work has seen (In reply to Joonas Niilola from comment #35) > There's already few people who have been global moderators for years but > never got recruited into full devs. Not sure in what sort of violation of > GLEP-38 that is, but looks like it's possible to moderate forums without > developer status. Yes, that is true. There is no technical or logical requirement for a forum moderator to be a Gentoo developer. GLEP 38 is only informational, i.e. it describes why some forum moderators were made into developers in the past. > Not trying to discuss this subject in here, but could the "Staffer" status > be brought back, with less privileges but also less monitoring by the > undertakers? Say, reduced amount to 1-2 times a year, with minimal activity > required to keep Staffer status. (What was the reason it changed in the > first place?) It wasn't really changed, it was mostly renamed so that everyone is called 'developer' now. In my opinion, this makes sense -- instead of creating a few different classes of Gentoo developers, we just call everyone a developer and have an extra bit to differentiate gentoo.git push access. While this is primarily a matter of naming, it makes some stuff simpler to express. For example, when a developer decides to stop maintaining ebuilds, we don't convert him from 'developer' to 'staffer' -- we simply disable the commit bit. The primary deal with being a Gentoo developer (/ staffer in old terminology) is that you get a @gentoo.org e-mail address and a place on the official list, meaning that you are perceived as someone developing Gentoo and your actions and opinions are associated with Gentoo. In my opinion, this is a big deal and that's why it should be really given to people who actively contribute to Gentoo, and taken away when they stop. In other words, if you want to claim that you're part of Gentoo, then you should really be part of Gentoo, do something that makes a difference. Introducing a role with minimal activity does not really fit that. If we just want to note that someone has been doing something for Gentoo in the past, we already have the ex-developer list. If you want to list 'occasional' contributors somewhere, I'm all for it. However, they shouldn't get the right to speak on behalf of Gentoo. Also, Robin has noted in the past that Gentoo is not an e-mail hosting service -- we should really give accounts to people who need them to work on Gentoo, not anyone who wants to have one. So I don't think that there's anything to be changed in that regard. The developer status should remain specific to active developers. Other people are welcome to contribute, and by all means we appreciate their contributions, and I'm all for honoring them by listing as contributors or alike. However, I think that to get the full developer status with the ability to be clearly associated with Gentoo, you simply have to deserve it. You have to somewhat actively make the distribution, somewhat know how it works and what's happening inside. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #38) > (In reply to Joonas Niilola from comment #35) > > There's already few people who have been global moderators for years but > > never got recruited into full devs. Not sure in what sort of violation of > > GLEP-38 that is, but looks like it's possible to moderate forums without > > developer status. > > Yes, that is true. There is no technical or logical requirement for a forum > moderator to be a Gentoo developer. GLEP 38 is only informational, i.e. it > describes why some forum moderators were made into developers in the past. So, this whole bug thing can be summed up into something like: "You don't do as much work as I do... so you shouldn't have a cool badge or email address like me" ----- comments from mgorny ----- "I don't understand the apparent need for Forum moderators to exercise full privileges of Gentoo developers without actually being required to perform at least similar amount of work." "Actually, 10 actions don't seem much. What is that like, 10 minutes of work a month? Do you seriously consider this equivalent to other developers who spent hours a week?" "It's always a problem of individual judgement. There is a major difference between someone who contributes little because of little time or problems or whatever, and someone who is making one version bump every 3 months just to troll undertakers. You could argue that it can't be proven but often it is in plain sight." "I suppose that would be fair to people who put a lot of work to provide user support on IRC and various other media and who do not get special developer status." "The primary deal with being a Gentoo developer (/ staffer in old terminology) is that you get a @gentoo.org e-mail address and a place on the official list, meaning that you are perceived as someone developing Gentoo and your actions and opinions are associated with Gentoo. In my opinion, this is a big deal and that's why it should be really given to people who actively contribute to Gentoo, and taken away when they stop. In other words, if you want to claim that you're part of Gentoo, then you should really be part of Gentoo, do something that makes a difference." ----- So, it seems there is really just a concern around GLEP38 from mgorny. Instead, what we are seeing is the berating of non-commit devs, questioning the legitimacy of others work, questioning the amount of work done by others, questioning peoples intent (assuming individuals are trolling), etc. Of course, one may assume this is "acceptable" because it is the undertakers project, but I would offer it is clearly maleficent. Please, stop these shenanigans. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #22) > (In reply to Alec Warner from comment #21) > > I'm happy to: > > - Retire mods who never log into the forums > > - Retire mods who never post > > - Retire mods who never PM anyone on the forums > > This is pure nonsense. So now any user who randomly chit-chats on Forums is > supposed to be promoted to developer? Or only these special snowflakes who > belong to the 'old group of buddies' who were recruited once and can't be > touched unless they graciously permit us to? > Airing out your collection of vintage strawmen in your ongoing effort to gish gallop your way through doing whatever you please while refusing to work with others hardly seems productive, and it certainly runs counter to your pet bugbear of conveinence: the idea of respecting the time of others. Claiming that others are somehow specially favored, against any semblance of reality, when you seem to have a hard time getting through a single post without breaching the CoC while never getting disciplined for it is a fantastic display of a lack of self awareness. > That's what I've been asking for. What has changed that it suddenly became > possible? > When you have "asked" for logs, you have tacked on requirements seemingly designed to make compliance either infeasible, impossible, or utterly nonsensical; what changed that it suddenly became an option now? > This is what we get when people keep cheating. Either that, or we > arbitrarily retire people which is considered even worse. Forum mods are a > large group that has mostly avoided communication with any other Gentoo > group. They were also demanding the absolutely right to decide who goes in > or out, and they have proven that they don't even track whether their > members are active. You keep claiming that there is cheating going on, without actually pointing out what the supposed cheating is. I would venture that arbitrarily shifting goalposts, formulating nonsense policies which you then post date without even bothering to actually document anywhere, and generally refusing to actually work with others when they offer is itself de facto cheating. Forum mods have been council members, president of the trustees, members of infra, arch teams, leads of other projects, and so on, not to mention regularly interacting with other developers in general; get some new strawmen. Every other team has the right to admit or dismiss members at their discretion. Also, it would be an "absolute right", unless that was a freudian slip and you are admitting that teams are absolutely right in considering themselves free to admit and dismiss members of their own accord. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #23) > Actually, 10 actions don't seem much. What is that like, 10 minutes of work > a month? Do you seriously consider this equivalent to other developers who > spent hours a week? It is nice to know that actually investing the time to make ten actions which would leave an audit trail is completely disregarded. It is curious to me that moderators and administrators on the forum regularly investing hours per day is insufficient while developers with tree access can, according to policy, commit annually while retaining full access. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #25) > So once again we're back to the idea that Forum teams is about logging in to > the Forums in order to chat. Your paranoid fantasies stopped being of anything resembling interest long ago, though it is curious that you insist on posting them while complaining about the supposed noise others make when trying to get straight answers out of you. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #28) > (In reply to Alec Warner from comment #26) > It's always a problem of individual judgement. There is a major difference > between someone who contributes little because of little time or problems or > whatever, and someone who is making one version bump every 3 months just to > troll undertakers. You could argue that it can't be proven but often it is > in plain sight. > Such "plain sight" exercised with your repeatedly demonstrated utter lack of understanding of how a forum works and is maintained rather plainly misses quite a lot, but you refuse to even consider the idea that some administrators administrate (ie do actual work) more than they march around waving the flag to score mgorny certified activity points. > Undertakers have interacted with a large number of developers. What I've > learned during that time, is that the more aggressively someone responds to > our mails, the more likely is that that person should actually be retired. > But instead of retiring and improving the health of the community, we end up > inventing more rules and the toxic people invent more loopholes and throw > more accusations. > What I have learned from interacting with undertakers, outside of processing quite a few retirements myself, is that trying to work with them is futile. > Of course, you can argue theory a lot. But how am I supposed to feel about > someone who has practically zero public activity on Forums and sends tons of > mail on how he's active in Gentoo by sending mail that he's unhappy with > Gentoo (why he's even still in Gentoo?). By your argument, not only should infra be disbanded because they don't have parades every time they restart a service but nobody ever tells anyone that they messed up in the hopes of getting them to improve. Which is a rather curious argument to come from someone who is a member of both infra and QA. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #29) > (In reply to Alec Warner from comment #27) > Why would they? Some of them have already replied with sufficient data, and > were really nice and understanding. Really, if you are actually working > towards Gentoo you shouldn't have a big issue proving it given 12 months of > time. > And yet you *still* have not stated what you consider to be "sufficient data" while having accepted some things as "sufficient data". Moving the goalposts globally is one thing, refusing to tell someone where they even are while complaining that they even ask is just beyond the pale. > I'm aware of only one who has focused on trying to drown undertakers in > useless argument instead, and I don't really understand why you're trying > hard to support such a toxic person. Given your truly impassioned claims that considering libel to be bad form is grounds for expulsion from Gentoo, I can only take being called toxic by you as the highest form of compliment that you are capable of fashioning. Thank you. Still, it is singularly curious that literally just telling you that your stated requirements are infeasible and offering to help formulate feasible alternatives is "drowning" you in "useless" messages. (In reply to Joonas Niilola from comment #35) > There's already few people who have been global moderators for years but > never got recruited into full devs. Not sure in what sort of violation of > GLEP-38 that is, but looks like it's possible to moderate forums without > developer status. > Of course it it technically possible to do, but access to infra, for instance, is distinctly curtailed, especially if all forum moderators lose developer cloaks on IRC. > Not trying to discuss this subject in here, but could the "Staffer" status > be brought back, with less privileges but also less monitoring by the > undertakers? Say, reduced amount to 1-2 times a year, with minimal activity > required to keep Staffer status. (What was the reason it changed in the > first place?) > So, introduce a new old status that would be effectively the old new status which would have the benefit of avoiding the new nonsense requirement by instead using the same requirements as anyone else... which the subjects already comply with? Wouldn't it be simpler to just have uniform requirements for everyone instead of making special classes to work around toward having the same requirements? > (Also this matter at hand should be resolved with those already recruited) Frankly, given the circumstances under which two members of the project not having finished formal recruiting was brought to general attention, there seemed little, if any, incentive to force them to finish immediately given that there was already a push forming to get all forum mods removed anyway. I would be entirely unsurprised at this point if they both opted to leave instead of dealing with the inane nonsense being pushed by those outside of the project, especially council members and undertakers. (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #37) > I meant I agree with Michal's position here... and don't agree with > personalizing on him this conflict... it's a conflict that anyone doing > undertakers work has seen So, everyone doing undertakers work openly admits to specifically targeting one person because they can't be bothered to have a few minutes worth of conversation interrupting their years worth of trolling, to actually answer simple questions like "what do you actually want?" or "how can this be done in practice?", seriously? (In reply to desultory from comment #40) [...] > (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #37) > > I meant I agree with Michal's position here... and don't agree with > > personalizing on him this conflict... it's a conflict that anyone doing > > undertakers work has seen > > So, everyone doing undertakers work openly admits to specifically targeting > one person because they can't be bothered to have a few minutes worth of > conversation interrupting their years worth of trolling, to actually answer > simple questions like "what do you actually want?" or "how can this be done > in practice?", seriously? Nobody said that, refrain from putting words in my mouth I never said and neither think (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #37) > (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #36) > [...] > > After reading some posts here and in mailing list that look to point with > > the finger to Michal for this conflict, I only wanted to clarify that I > > agree completely with this. > > I meant I agree with Michal's position here... and don't agree with > personalizing on him this conflict... it's a conflict that anyone doing > undertakers work has seen As someone that worked for quite a *few* years as an undertaker, I object to your generalization. I certainly didn't have any conflict with forums-mods, the ops project and other non-commit developers. I also don't recall ever hearing rane, who did retirement with me for many years, complaining about it either. From what I've seen, the "conflict" began after others started doing retirement work and, I'd argue, got out of control with Michał. (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #41) > (In reply to desultory from comment #40) > [...] > > (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #37) > > > I meant I agree with Michal's position here... and don't agree with > > > personalizing on him this conflict... it's a conflict that anyone doing > > > undertakers work has seen > > > > So, everyone doing undertakers work openly admits to specifically targeting > > one person because they can't be bothered to have a few minutes worth of > > conversation interrupting their years worth of trolling, to actually answer > > simple questions like "what do you actually want?" or "how can this be done > > in practice?", seriously? > > Nobody said that, refrain from putting words in my mouth I never said and > neither think That is very much what mgorny wrote in this very bug, and your agreeing with him indicated that you agreed with what he wrote in this very bug. If you do not want words attributed to you, do not attribute them to yourself. This thread seems to be going heavily into off-topic ad hominem attacks, so restricting it to actual members of the Infra, Forums and Undertakers. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #44) > This thread seems to be going heavily into off-topic ad hominem attacks, so > restricting it to actual members of the Infra, Forums and Undertakers. You clearly started the ad hominem attacks. Let's stop the double standard here. (In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #42) > (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #37) > > (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #36) > > [...] > > > After reading some posts here and in mailing list that look to point with > > > the finger to Michal for this conflict, I only wanted to clarify that I > > > agree completely with this. > > > > I meant I agree with Michal's position here... and don't agree with > > personalizing on him this conflict... it's a conflict that anyone doing > > undertakers work has seen > > As someone that worked for quite a *few* years as an undertaker, I object to > your generalization. I certainly didn't have any conflict with forums-mods, > the ops project and other non-commit developers. > I also don't recall ever hearing rane, who did retirement with me for many > years, complaining about it either. > From what I've seen, the "conflict" began after others started doing > retirement work and, I'd argue, got out of control with Michał. I have also being working as undertaker for years and the problems weren't arising as soon as we were not looking at all to people not doing commits. At some point we started at least contacting "staff" devs that were harder to track when they were becoming away... then the issues started as can be seen in https://bugs.gentoo.org/99310#c7 because it seems we don't have access to "all the metrics". You can simply see this bug pending for 3 years, and I was not even asking for something impossible to achieve... well... I remember when I started to contribute in opensource projects... and it was as a moderator in spanish Mandrake forums... and it wasn't so difficult to track if we were still around (I think they were using Drupal at that time for host them). (In reply to desultory from comment #43) > (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #41) > > (In reply to desultory from comment #40) > > [...] > > > (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #37) > > > > I meant I agree with Michal's position here... and don't agree with > > > > personalizing on him this conflict... it's a conflict that anyone doing > > > > undertakers work has seen > > > > > > So, everyone doing undertakers work openly admits to specifically targeting > > > one person because they can't be bothered to have a few minutes worth of > > > conversation interrupting their years worth of trolling, to actually answer > > > simple questions like "what do you actually want?" or "how can this be done > > > in practice?", seriously? > > > > Nobody said that, refrain from putting words in my mouth I never said and > > neither think > > That is very much what mgorny wrote in this very bug, and your agreeing with > him indicated that you agreed with what he wrote in this very bug. If you do > not want words attributed to you, do not attribute them to yourself. Well... I think anyone else can simply read the thread and understand the meaning instead of that interpretations. (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #46) > (In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #42) > > (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #37) > > > (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #36) > > > [...] > > > > After reading some posts here and in mailing list that look to point with > > > > the finger to Michal for this conflict, I only wanted to clarify that I > > > > agree completely with this. > > > > > > I meant I agree with Michal's position here... and don't agree with > > > personalizing on him this conflict... it's a conflict that anyone doing > > > undertakers work has seen > > > > As someone that worked for quite a *few* years as an undertaker, I object to > > your generalization. I certainly didn't have any conflict with forums-mods, > > the ops project and other non-commit developers. > > I also don't recall ever hearing rane, who did retirement with me for many > > years, complaining about it either. > > From what I've seen, the "conflict" began after others started doing > > retirement work and, I'd argue, got out of control with Michał. > > I have also being working as undertaker for years and the problems weren't > arising as soon as we were not looking at all to people not doing commits. > At some point we started at least contacting "staff" devs that were harder > to track when they were becoming away... then the issues started as can be > seen in https://bugs.gentoo.org/99310#c7 because it seems we don't have > access to "all the metrics". > > You can simply see this bug pending for 3 years, and I was not even asking > for something impossible to achieve... well... I remember when I started to > contribute in opensource projects... and it was as a moderator in spanish > Mandrake forums... and it wasn't so difficult to track if we were still > around (I think they were using Drupal at that time for host them). My concern is simply a lack of compromise. - We have stated clearly that a log of explicit moderation actions is not possible (e.g. its brittle, it will break etc.) - I offered a last_login log, this was deemed too weak a metric. - I offered an activity log (of logins, posts, and DMs); This too was deemed too weak a metric. - The only metric deemed 'not weak enough' is the metric we have already stated is not possible, and thus we are at an impasse. I can't even get people to agree that the metric we can build today is sufficient for now (but perhaps with the upgrade we might get better ones.) This to me is unacceptable, and I have begun escalating the situation as a result. -A > > (In reply to desultory from comment #43) > > (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #41) > > > (In reply to desultory from comment #40) > > > [...] > > > > (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #37) > > > > > I meant I agree with Michal's position here... and don't agree with > > > > > personalizing on him this conflict... it's a conflict that anyone doing > > > > > undertakers work has seen > > > > > > > > So, everyone doing undertakers work openly admits to specifically targeting > > > > one person because they can't be bothered to have a few minutes worth of > > > > conversation interrupting their years worth of trolling, to actually answer > > > > simple questions like "what do you actually want?" or "how can this be done > > > > in practice?", seriously? > > > > > > Nobody said that, refrain from putting words in my mouth I never said and > > > neither think > > > > That is very much what mgorny wrote in this very bug, and your agreeing with > > him indicated that you agreed with what he wrote in this very bug. If you do > > not want words attributed to you, do not attribute them to yourself. > > Well... I think anyone else can simply read the thread and understand the > meaning instead of that interpretations. (In reply to Alec Warner from comment #47) > My concern is simply a lack of compromise. > > - We have stated clearly that a log of explicit moderation actions is not > possible (e.g. its brittle, it will break etc.) > - I offered a last_login log, this was deemed too weak a metric. > - I offered an activity log (of logins, posts, and DMs); This too was > deemed too weak a metric. > - The only metric deemed 'not weak enough' is the metric we have already > stated is not possible, and thus we are at an impasse. > > I can't even get people to agree that the metric we can build today is > sufficient for now (but perhaps with the upgrade we might get better ones.) > This to me is unacceptable, and I have begun escalating the situation as a > result. > > -A Thanks a lot for summarizing the options. From my point of view, even if not perfect, having the technically possible alternatives done would still help a lot... I mean... better that information than current one. Also, maybe one metric alone is not good enough... but the sum of multiple metrics will help as they will be useful to get a more complete image of the situation. Then, I think that it would be nice to have that implemented and we will see how it works... it should work better even if, of course, there can be some corner cases uncovered. Best regards This is being unrestricted. It never should have been. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #38) > Yes, that is true. There is no technical or logical requirement for a forum > moderator to be a Gentoo developer. GLEP 38 is only informational, i.e. it > describes why some forum moderators were made into developers in the past. For Forum Moderators, I suppose that's true, but for Forum Administrators, it's *not.* Among other things, we have (and need) access to the raw database in the furtherance of Forum maintenance. We occasionally find it necessary to do queries against the database (and, in rare cases, make alterations) to troubleshoot and correct abstruse issues. |
