The purpose of tb-planning.
Wayne Mery (vn)
vseerror at Lehigh.EDU
Thu Jun 2 15:00:46 UTC 2011
On 6/2/2011 10:06 AM, Blake Winton wrote:
> On 11-06-02 9:49 , Jeff Grossman wrote:
>> On 6/2/2011 6:14 AM, Mark Banner wrote:
>>> The reason I use tb-planning for a lot of these things, is that
>>> because they are actually planning related. In the case of the version
>>> information, we needed to announce it to developers and the closer
>>> Thunderbird community (so that they would know what is happening with
>>> the change of version numbers), and before we had time/opportunity to
>>> announce it to the wider audience.
>> The moderation part of tb-planning worries me a little bit in this
>> regard though. Luckily Blake has not cancelled any posts (or at least I
>> have not seen it) which he feels should not be dealt with here. But, he
>> has said that he feels he went and approved too many posts already that
>> should not have been approved because they are not moving the project
> Fortunately for everyone, I'm not the only moderator. :) That's
> important because the other moderators don't necessarily agree with me,
> and most of the messages in the thread were moderated by them, so even
> if I cancelled all the posts I came across, it wouldn't have changed
> that much.
>> If something would be announced on the announce list, but
>> somebody felt like they needed to discuss it and brought it here to
>> tb-planning and Blake (or the moderators in this case) decided to cancel
>> the post because it was a decision already made that does not need any
>> discussion, then there is no avenue to discuss the change that was
>> announced. (Sorry for that run on sentence).
> Well, there would still be your own blog, mdat, Mozillazine,
> GetSatisfaction… ;) But yes, I see your point.
>> I think we should keep tb-planning and use it as much as possible to
>> keep these types of discussions alive. I understand that some of the
>> announcements might not be up for debate as such, but it still good to
>> hear about other peoples opinions that might not have been thought off.
>> Decisions that are made can always be changed if it is for the better of
>> the project.
> Yeah, perhaps the best idea _is_ to keep tb-planning the way it is,
> mostly. What do you all think about keeping tb-planning mostly open, but
> asking people to re-write their posts if they aren't adding useful
> information? (i.e. new opinions and facts would be welcomed, but "me
> too" posts and posts which are just complaining and not offering
> suggestions would be asked to be re-written?)
Indeed - "me toos" reminds me of the US congress (just an example) where
everyone seeks to have their voice heard and get their 10 minutes of
face time on TV, even if the position was stated by others, possibly in
a different way. Not always a productive use of time.
Having been a moderator in other venues, but also a lover of freedom and
a belief that other viewpoints often lead to better understanding and
results, it is difficult to make a decision to a censure (for lack of a
better word) any subscriber's postings. Censuring doesn't feel good to
the moderator. And it can also be a slippery slope, for example when
person B complains that "hey, you let person A's post through, why not
mine". You become a cop instead of a facilitator.
This is not to say that other viewpoints aren't valued, but there must
be a useful result, and not a never ending stream comments as when gets
when argues the merits of PC vs Mac.
Perhaps a way forward is for announcements of decisions to be clearly
tagged as such, and any followup postings that disagree should do more
than post their displeasure and why; the reader should assume that the
announced decision will be enacted, and present possible solutions that
reduce their anticipated pain in that new environment.
Another possibility is move discussion to some other forum, or even
private messages. (not unlike taking the discussion to a subcommittee)
More information about the tb-planning