Subject: Re: [OT] Noise filter, was: For Approval: GPLv3
From: "Chris Travers" <chris.travers@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 17:09:24 -0700
Mon, 3 Sep 2007 17:09:24 -0700
On 9/3/07, Luis Villa <luis@tieguy.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/2/07, Tobia <tobia.conforto@linux.it> wrote:
> > Rick Moen wrote:
> > > This mailing list attracts a certain number of licensing trolls
> > > thrilled by the apparent opportunity to waste busy people's time.
> > > But we have killfiles.
> >
> > "a certain number" being two? :-)
> >
> > I know it's OT, but this otherwise very interesting list made me pick up
> > man procmailrc again (daunting but rewarding task!) and I came up with
> > this noise filter, that you and others might find useful:
>
> If OSI really wants to become relevant again, maybe step 1 would be
> 'make license-discuss useful for/usable by those who don't have
> procmail installed.' If OSI is happy to have license-discuss be what
> one friend called a 'cesspool', then I agree wholeheartedly that
> passing around procmail recipes is a great way to do it.



I would actually agree.

In my view, this means we need an obvious document which states that this
list is *limited* to issues concerning license approval and vetting
licenses.  Right now everything says that this is the place to discuss such
things, but there is no statement that states that this is the only function
for the list.

It also means more active management of the list, to help keep thinks fair,
on-topic, and the like.


Luis (using procmail to solve the trolls is like saying "I don't care
> about global warming, I have air-conditioning!" or "I don't care about
> corruption, I'm getting a cut!")



Also, certain people like to post publically to the list posts which contain
nothing but insults and then  characterize people who don't agree with them
as trolls.  Without more active management, I don;t believe that these
issues can be solved.

However, I don;t think it is a matter of OSI becoming relevant again.  Even
though I have questions about OSI's future, I think the organization is
*currently* relevant but may be in danger of losing that if the label of
"troll" means anyone who doesn't accept the party line.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers




On 9/3/07, Luis Villa <luis@tieguy.org> wrote:
On 9/2/07, Tobia <tobia.conforto@linux.it> wrote:
> Rick Moen wrote:
> > This mailing list attracts a certain number of licensing trolls
> > thrilled by the apparent opportunity to waste busy people's time.
> > But we have killfiles.
>
> "a certain number" being two? :-)
>
> I know it's OT, but this otherwise very interesting list made me pick up
> man procmailrc again (daunting but rewarding task!) and I came up with
> this noise filter, that you and others might find useful:

If OSI really wants to become relevant again, maybe step 1 would be
'make license-discuss useful for/usable by those who don't have
procmail installed.' If OSI is happy to have license-discuss be what
one friend called a 'cesspool', then I agree wholeheartedly that
passing around procmail recipes is a great way to do it.


I would actually agree.

In my view, this means we need an obvious document which states that this list is *limited* to issues concerning license approval and vetting licenses.  Right now everything says that this is the place to discuss such things, but there is no statement that states that this is the only function for the list.

It also means more active management of the list, to help keep thinks fair, on-topic, and the like.


Luis (using procmail to solve the trolls is like saying "I don't care
about global warming, I have air-conditioning!" or "I don't care about
corruption, I'm getting a cut!")


Also, certain people like to post publically to the list posts which contain nothing but insults and then  characterize people who don't agree with them as trolls.  Without more active management, I don;t believe that these issues can be solved.

However, I don;t think it is a matter of OSI becoming relevant again.  Even though I have questions about OSI's future, I think the organization is *currently* relevant but may be in danger of losing that if the label of "troll" means anyone who doesn't accept the party line.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers