Context: the creation of a debian-mediation@ mailing list is requested
in #437842.

I support the proposal. Such a mailing list could be helpful when
dealing with complex conflicts with both technical and social aspects,
like some conflicts which resulted in the expulsion of DDs, or the dpkg
triggers discussion. One problem with such conflicts is that they tend
to spread on several mailing lists, and are off-topic on all lists.
Taking those discussions to -mediation@ would allow to remove the noise
from other lists, and let people interested in helping with getting the
facts right, and finding a compromise, do that on a list where such
discussions are not considered off-topic.

Also, such a list would be a good way to experiment with the idea of a
social committee, and see if it is really needed and how it could help
to solve problems.

Lucas Nussbaum lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:

I support the proposal if:-

"exempt of banning and other abuse commonly seen in when these issues
are handled in other debian list, and allow" is replaced by "where
banning only happens after with-reason warnings from two different
debian developers, that allows"; and

"As such, messages to this list should not be cc'd to any other list
or person, or discussions moved to private email or another list,
except by specific request of those recipient(s)." is added to the end.

I would like it if "Contributors should post to this list no more than
twice a day." were added, but I understand if that's still
contraversial.

Sorry for the conditional support, but I think another completely
unregulated list will become unusable fast.

MJ, please forward this to the mailing list, as i am being censored.

On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 11:56:04AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:

This poses another problem. Who is responsible for putting in place
such a ban, and what would be the criterias for putting it in place ?

Forwarded From: Sven Luther on request because I
didn't see much wrong with it.

On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 11:56:04AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:

This poses another problem. Who is responsible for putting in place
such a ban, and what would be the criterias for putting it in place ?

Hi,

On Tuesday 02 September 2008 17:51, MJ Ray wrote:
[debian-censorship]

If I don't let you scream and shout in my living room, thats not censorship
(as long as you have a whole street and city (*) to shout).

regards,
Holger

(*) aka blogs and the whole internet...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBIvWbaUHLQNqxYNSARAp79AKCFKhfAzQQuUKSe3e1Ujnzk6y636wCeIbf/
KsAyGlUlpvCjdtefmc9HE4c=
=lx2/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tuesday 02 September 2008 18:16, Holger Levsen wrote:

s/living room/house, garage and garden/ even

regards,
Holger

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBIvWipUHLQNqxYNSARAidBAKCHwJLsfldYdzQQktPS6zkxO3cHkgCguAAp
qJluWpW+gY/4U65UrG50YaU=
=HjZL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

MJ Ray phonecoop.coop> Forwarded From: Sven Luther
: [...]

Equally, 50 seems far too high to me. I'd be surprised if 50 DDs are
active in mediation at one time.

I think that's unacceptable for three reasons: firstly, it repeats
work (all N subscribers updating their filters); secondly, the
archives become less useful; thirdly, someone behaving badly enough to
get banned from a list of mediators *really* needs to know that.