[PLUG] Proposal for change from the current state of the list.
shantanoo at gmail.com
Sun Jan 27 07:11:46 PST 2013
On 23/01/13 11:21 AM, Mandar Vaze / मंदार वझे wrote:
> The reaction seems like "You asked for it, you are getting it. Don't blame
> us for it." ("it" indicates spam)
In a way, yes it seems to be like that. People were asking for freedom. they get it now. Freedom comes with responsibilities. (With great power comes great responsibility...). Lets see how people want to take them up.
> Specific comments follow :
> 1. All the users moderation flag (that is currently set) to be
> I'm assuming these users were put under moderation for a reason.
> Any new member joining the list will not get a moderation
>> flag set.
> Typically, new users are put under moderation till their first post is
> This is general practice - helps prevent spam.
>> 2. All the current filters to be removed and started from scratch. Let
>> us use the list of filters from Arun Khan's mail to start of the new
>> filters list.
> I assume the new filters will be in place as soon as old filters are
> removed, and there won't be gap of "days" between the too.
> "No filter" mailing list mean LOTS of spam (Refer to my first comment)
>> 3. Any change (add/delete/modify) of filter and add/remove moderation
>> flag for a list member and removing of any list member is to be done
>> by voting. 15 votes in favour of the proposal required for approval.
>> (eg. 20 votes in favour and 5 negative votes is OK)
> Is there cutoff time ? What if you get 14 votes "soon enough" and no 15th
> vote for 2 months ?
> Will you keep waiting indefinitely ?
Waiting indefinitely makes sense. If there is any spam by the user, getting the 15th vote may not be time consuming. IMO.
Members are free do discuss/decide the number. RFC is meant for the same.
> I think members trust moderators to make the right decision, especially
> when removing/deleting a user
> 4. There will be moderator/s but they will act only once in a week.
> This is considering that there will be hardly anything in moderation
>> and there will be less filters applicable.
> This makes sense only if the list of "open for all" (including spammers)
> Which I don;t think any members want.
> I suggest there will be a "pool" of moderators, they "approve/delete"
> messages from the queue as and when possible.
Within few weeks this should be settled. If there is spam, getting 15
(Number can be decided here itself) votes will be easy. This will
increase involvement of everyone. At least more people will come forward
to fight against spam and to keep the list clean.
>> Moderators identities will not be disclosed.
>> 6. Considering the above, it will be decided on the list itself if the
>> list is to be declared moderated or un-moderated.
> This hardly matters (to the users)
So you are suggesting that there should be no change to the list? Users trust current moderators, and this whole thread is irrelevant?
More information about the plug-mail