in reply to Re^2: Moderation of Open Source projects
in thread Moderation of Open Source projects

just because someone is a "respected perl leader" does not mean that they should have any say in the matter.
A moderator's job isn't there to decide anything, but to improve communication.

Last I checked, there was no "respected perl leader" that was also a professional moderator. Assuming that $repsected_perl_leaders[ rand() ] has enough free time to waste on people who are most likely just being ridiculous and immature, why would they want too? Adults should be able to settle their differences, or be smart/mature enough to just walk away.

Please, please, no. If two (or more) adults cannot settle an argument between themselves, what makes you think a professional moderator would actually help?
So you think that professional moderators are entirely worthless?

Actually in many cases moderators help to stop strikes, when the involved parties are at odds with each other. (At least that's common practice here in Germany).

Moderators are not worthless, in something important like a strike. But a "professional moderator" being pulled in because someone got yelled at on a mailing list by someone else who was likely just having a bad day, that's a little silly.

Open source software is "free" in terms of money, but not in terms of developer time and effort. If I choose to use an open source project, it is ultimately my responsibility to make it work, and not the responsibility of the author. There is a reason why people put things like this at the end of their modules:

BECAUSE THIS SOFTWARE IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE SOFTWARE, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE SOFTWARE "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE SOFTWARE PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR, OR CORRECTION.

IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE SOFTWARE AS PERMITTED BY THE ABOVE LICENCE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE SOFTWARE TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER SOFTWARE), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

-stvn

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Moderation of Open Source projects
by zby (Vicar) on Feb 06, 2008 at 20:37 UTC
    I think you perceive that idea as a something that could be used to put pressure on the project leaders - it could be like that - but I would do it that way. I would rather make it as an available tool for the project leaders to solve the conflicts in a civilized way.
[reply]

      No, you misunderstand me. I agree that sometimes a semi-impartial 3rd party can help. Especially in the case of major, project destroying conflicts between core developers, like what happened with Catalyst a little while ago. In that case a third party was brought in and helped to resolve things and the project survived. But honestly it is pretty rare for a conflict to get as out of hand as that one did and even still I really think that a 3rd party moderator is an absolute last resort. But seriously, moderators are not needed for heated arguments on mailing list, those happen 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year, they are just part of how things are here on the internet.

      What I am objecting too is your idea that this is the business of "respected Perl leaders" or the TPF at all. Just because my project is built with Perl doesn't mean that either of those two parties has the right to come in and throw their weight around. Honestly if you ever did use this to "put pressure on the project leader" it would likely blow up in your face, I know personally I would be pretty upset of that was done to me on my project.

      I cannot stress enough the idea that open source work is volunteer labor, so authors and contributors are beholden to nothing. Sure a good author will treat his users well and be open to suggestions and such, but there is no law or contract that says they have to do that. If you don't like this fact, then you should not use open source software.

      -stvn
[reply]
        I did not specify the circumstances when the third party moderation should be brought in - I agree that it's all matter of weighting the benefits and the work required to do it right. But I don't agree that the constant email flamewars are the best of the possible communication and I would expect that the mere possibility of this mediation would inspire people to cool down and think a bit more broadly.

        Once again I don't say that TPF should have "the right to come in and throw their weight around" - but rather I say that project leaders should have the possibility of inviting a third party moderator when they need to.

        Community is about having things in common - it can be a volunteer community - but that does not mean that there is no place for negotiation.

        And shouting at me with your big fonts does not add any validity to your straw man arguments.

[reply]

In Section Meditations