Inappropriate tone on this mailing list and requirement for governance

[Loïc Martin]

Oliver Grawert wrote:
> hi,
> 
> The tone used on this mailing list recently got a lot worse and totally
> out of bounds with the requirement to respect the Ubuntu Code of Conduct
> [1] for posts to this list.

Agreed, and thank you for jumping in. Some posters definitely forgot 
that whether they agree or not with the Ubuntu CoC on a personal level, 
any post they make to this list has to comply with it. From 
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailinglists/etiquette
> The Ubuntu code of conduct governs all interaction within the Ubuntu
 > community. Because mailing lists form an integral part of that
 > interaction, it is especially important to bear the code of conduct in
 > mind at all times. Mailing list users should read the code of conduct 
 > in full, and if possible, should digitally sign a copy.

This list is for the Ubuntu community, not just for a self-proclaimed 
"community" made of the most vocal "regular members". Whether someone 
signed the CoC is irrelevant when deciding what tone to use on any 
Ubuntu mailing list.

Oliver Grawert wrote:
> In a discussion i had with one of the administrators we came to the
> conclusion that a governance team should be put in place taking the
> administrator role for it, consisting of people actively participating
> in the list and functioning similar to the IRC council [3] we already
> have in place for our IRC channels.
> 
> The team should be formed during a community council meeting
> (requirements need to be defined here) operating as a sub-instance of
> the Ubuntu Community Council [4].

Hopefully the Community Council will consider previous posts the 
applicant made to this mailing list to assess if that person already 
shows that he/she respects the CoC in its actions. The past month (or 
past 2 month) have seen enough out of bonds threads to attest if the 
applicant is well suited to represent the council.
(From http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailinglists/etiquette)
 > Fundamental aspects of the code of conduct relevant to mailing lists
 > include:
 >
 > * Be considerate;
 > * Be respectful;
 > * Be collaborative;
 > * When you disagree, consult others;
 > * When you are unsure, ask for help;
 > * Step down considerately;
 > * Avoid flamewars, trolling, personal attacks, and repetitive
 >   arguments.
Someone that can't apply to himself those elementary principles is an 
ill choice for moderating the list, not only because they wouldn't 
represent the community, but also because they already showed they don't 
value cooperation. Without cooperation, you can't build a durable team.

Oliver Grawert wrote:
> Similar to the IRC Operator guidelines [5] that team should first work
> out guidelines for itself how to handle different levels of
> inappropriate behavior (and indeed obey to its own rules).
> 
> The team should have enough members to peer-control itself so that one
> team member can not abuse power.
> 
> I would like to see a discussion on-list first for this topic but will
> put it up on the agenda for one of the next community council meetings
> [6] (given that UDS is near it is likely that one or the other meeting
> might have to be skipped by the council members, thus the proposal for
> the dates below)
(...)
> I wish everyone a healthy discussion and hope we come to a proper
> conclusion that suits the majority and turns this list into a more
> friendly place.

Here's a few propositions for the moderation.

1. The posts where by ignorance the sender top-posts, doesn't trim the 
message, sends it in HTML, doesn't specify a subject, reply to a thread 
to start a new one on a totally different subject ...

Those are simple mistakes that don't deserve any special action. 
However, since we also agree that there are recommendations made by the 
community, which address valid issues for at least some of our users, 
the sender of the message would certainly be happy to learn how to get 
better help on a mailing list.

There's already suggested replies on Launchpad for bug triagers, perhaps 
we could redact simple polite explanations for each of the 
aforementioned mistakes.

Moderators could then send the relevant advice off-list - and if 
somebody take upon himself to do that in-list but in a somehow short 
manner, moderators could probably also inform that person off-list that 
the matter was better taken care of privately, and point him/her to the 
recommended advices to pick in that circumstance.

Off-list replies would probably go better for the few picky egos we see 
sometimes on ubuntu-users, while most people would probably take upon 
themselves to resend their email or say sorry, when there's a need for it.

2. Out of topic threads :
If a thread is OT but correspond to an Ubuntu mailing list, it can 
safely be moved to the relevant mailing list (email resent to the 
relevant mailing list AND ubuntu-users with an explanation the thread 
has been moved to the appropriate list, then the thread can be locked on 
ubuntu-users and interested persons can continue the discussion where 
they would find more help or interest).

3. Offensive threads or posts :
Offensive threads can be locked without much off an explanation, just 
pointing to the fact they are against Ubuntu Code of Conduct.

Offensive posts probably deserve an in-list reply from the moderators, 
since that would help prevent flames. The reply could also follow a 
model decided in advance, and politely point that whatever reply people 
send on the thread should also respect the Ubuntu Code of Conduct (and 
people could ask themselves first if their reply follows "Be considerate 
/ Be respectful / Be collaborative / When you disagree, consult others / 
Avoid flamewars, trolling, personal attacks, and repetitive arguments.")

New users would probably need a time to adapt (especially if they are 
used to mailing lists where no Code of Conduct is required), and we all 
understand the frustration of new Ubuntu users when their hardware isn't 
recognised or Ubuntu just ate their 10 years old personal data.

Moderators (and any long-time mailing list user) can understand the 
circumstances, and only the posters that really show they don't want to 
respect other users probably deserve a short-time ban (one or two weeks 
for example, so the thread can cool down?)

It's different when experienced Ubuntu users participate in the mailing 
list in order to afford sometimes not respecting the CoC when posting 
and get away with it (since they're "regular users"). Those need to 
understand that their disservice to the community is still a disservice 
whatever the help they could provide in other posts. There would 
actually be far more technical help on this list if the people that can 
help hadn't been turned away by the "regulars".

However, a coherent action from the council and good practices set by 
moderators would certainly deter most of the troubles we could be afraid 
of, rending banning exceptional. Most abusive posters do so because they 
feel entitled to it, which would change once a few moderators start 
providing advice and reminding people that it's an Ubuntu mailing list - 
and Ubuntu has a Code of Conduct.

Loïc