Who maintains ruby-talk?
in [Ruby]
|
Prev: how can i add tones to my pc's sound card
Next: Undefined method `ire' with rubygems on mswin32
From: Seebs on 15 Apr 2010 02:26 On 2010-04-15, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty > than to those attending too small a degree of it. > --Thomas Jefferson Non-sequitur. "Liberty" does not mean that anyone who wants can disrupt anything, or harass anyone, they want. Decent moderation does not noticably impair liberty. More generally, a liberty which is useless has been effectively removed. > I find it rather curious that in the thread Tony starts, out of concern for > spammers and security holes, he posts 4 times in a row over the course of > ten minutes, and links to code that can be used to remove anyone from the > list. > Isn't he advocating an institution which, upon it's inception, would be > obligated to ban him? No. He's not spamming, and he's not posting malware. He's not doing things that could reasonably be mistaken for those, either. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Josh Cheek on 15 Apr 2010 02:47 [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Seebs <usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net> wrote: > On 2010-04-15, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much > liberty > > than to those attending too small a degree of it. > > --Thomas Jefferson > > Non-sequitur. "Liberty" does not mean that anyone who wants can disrupt > anything, or harass anyone, they want. Decent moderation does not > noticably > impair liberty. > > More generally, a liberty which is useless has been effectively removed. > > I think a better non sequitur is going from not wanting a moderator to being an anarchist. But that's not the point anyway, I'm not talking about their liberty, I'm talking about mine. I would rather have a few people spam a few threads than have to censor my posts out of fear of moderation. You can say moderation doesn't noticeably impair Liberty, but Jefferson also pointed out that "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. "
From: Phil Romero on 15 Apr 2010 03:12 On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Seebs <usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net> wrote: > > > On 2010-04-15, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much > > liberty > > > than to those attending too small a degree of it. > > > --Thomas Jefferson > > > > Non-sequitur. "Liberty" does not mean that anyone who wants can disrupt > > anything, or harass anyone, they want. Decent moderation does not > > noticably > > impair liberty. > > > > More generally, a liberty which is useless has been effectively removed
From: Robert Klemme on 15 Apr 2010 03:23 2010/4/15 Josh Cheek <josh.cheek(a)gmail.com>: > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Tony Arcieri <tony.arcieri(a)medioh.com>wrote: > >> This is precisely the case in which I feel a moderator should step in. >> Relying on "the community" to police itself is silly. Not at all! This is believing in maturity of people. I know, people can be nasty and sometimes I don't see any good in the human nature. But most of the time it's different - especially in this list. Compare that community with others and you'll know what I mean. >> Are you people really just a bunch of anarchists? I like moderation. > > I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty > than to those attending too small a degree of it. > --Thomas Jefferson I could not agree more. And yes, there is a particular difference between anarchists and liberals. I would rather think of us as grown ups who know how to get along well with each other and help those who do not - or forget it for a moment. Kind regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
From: Justin Collins on 15 Apr 2010 05:07
Tony Arcieri wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Justin Collins <justincollins(a)ucla.edu>wrote: > > >> I am not even sure moderation is a technical possibility. "ruby-talk" is >> actually an amalgam of a Google user group, a forum, and a mailing list, all >> of which are different systems run by different people. >> >> > > As someone who has built a supersyndication system (in Ruby!), I completely > do not buy this argument. As far as I am aware, the MLM of > ruby-talk(a)ruby-lang.org is the central authority of the state of the mailing > list, and everything else is just syndication. > > You're arguing that because ruby-talk is syndicated means it's > uncontrollable? Bullshit. Unless I'm confused the MLM is the central > authority. > > And, oh by the way, as I referenced in the OP, the MLM is subject to some > pretty ridiculous security vulnerabilities. Anyone can unsubscribe anyone > from ruby-talk, so long as the read it via e-mail. That's silly. > I am not sure that is a correct view of the system, but I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken. As I understand it, there are three ways to "input" posts and three ways to view posts. They can and sometimes do operate independently, although when they do it is considered a malfunction, because we don't want to isolate part of the community. They essentially replicate each other, so I do not think any one part is considered a central authority. As for your security concerns, they should be addressed to Matz if you have not already done so. As for your moderation concerns, I do not share them, nor do I really understand your vehemence (my perception!) on the issue. Trolls should not be fed, spammers should be blocked. Threads I don't care about are not read. I am with Robert in saying we should be a community that gets along without the need of supervisors. If there is one rule in our anarchist mailing list/forum/newsgroup, it is "Matz is nice so we are nice." That is enough of a moderator for me. -Justin |