[Asterisk-Dev] RFC: Moderating the Asterisk Mailing Lists

[Matt Riddell]

Leif Madsen wrote:
> I know the first thing you are thinking, "why are you posting this to
> the development list?".  Basically the reason is that the signal to
> noise ratio is lower here, what I propose to implement may require
> some development, and if you are subscribed to this list, you are
> probably smarter than the average newbie :)
> 
> There has been discussion on and off regarding moderating the Asterisk
> mailing lists as the number of junk posts continues to climb at a
> steady rate.  While it is impossible to have a perfect ratio between
> good and bad emails, I believe a moderated list can significantly
> improve it.
> 
> The first problem is that the Asterisk Users list is obviously
> mammoth.  It would probably be nearly impossible to moderate every
> single user on the list without a large support staff dedicated to
> moderating the list.  That just isn't going to happen.
> 
> So immediately you must come up with a group of volunteers to manage
> the lists.  OK, so lets assume you get 5-10 individuals to moderate
> the list.  Great, but you have the burden of managing the hundreds of
> posts a day to the list, plus the load placed upon the other
> moderators if (and when) someone goes on vacation.
> 
> Here is my proposition.  It may require some modification of the
> mailman software (as I'm sure no one is going to be in favour of
> switching it), and I don't believe this functionality exists in it.
> 
> All new users who join the mailing list are sent a list of guidelines
> which must be followed for their post to be accepted to the mailing
> list.  This includes not sending test messages, properly formatting
> their subject line, not using HTML or Rich Text (plain text only),
> posting to the appropriate lists, proper formatting of replies and
> just general list etiquette.  They must agree to these terms when they
> verify their email address (this wouldn't create any extra steps in
> the email verification process, just a simple change of the message
> body that is sent to the user).
> 
> These new users are then placed in a "group" of new users.  When they
> send their first message, it must be approved by a moderator before
> being posted to the mailing list.  All the moderator would have to do
> is make sure it follows the guidelines of the message and not deal too
> much with the actual content of the message (we are not trying to
> steer the content in any direction, it is simply to filter out content
> which is not appropriate).  After this first message has been
> approved, the "timer" is started.  After a specified period of time (3
> days, 1 week, 2 weeks?), then that user is automatically moved to a
> non-moderated group where they will be free to post messages to the
> mailing list *without* moderator approval.  This would keep the group
> of moderated people manageable (only a fraction of the full mailing
> list).  The number of people who are actively signing up over a period
> of time is probably, for the most part, constant.  The number of
> messages requiring moderation would probably be fairly constant as
> well.
> 
> What this will effectively do is force users to follow the rules for
> their "initiation" period, and basically "train" users how to use the
> mailing list correctly.  Posts which are rejected should have a reason
> sent back as to why it was rejected (such as, "Your post was rejected
> for not conforming to rule number 7 of the mailing list guidelines"). 
> The only problem would be deciding what to do with users already
> currently subscribed to the mailing list.  By default they would
> probably just have to be placed in the non-moderated group, with the
> moderators having the ability to temporarily suspend accounts for
> failing to follow the guidelines.  Such as in the case of a user going
> out of the office, turning on the "Out of office" reply, but not
> temporarily suspending their subscription.
> 
> While the purpose of moderating the list is to make sure posts conform
> to guidelines, it is NOT meant as a way to silence people.  I know
> people are probably looking to jump all over the idea because of free
> speech issues, but that is not (and should not) be the intension at
> all.
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing if anyone else feels the same.  I realize
> this would have to be a decision by Digium to allow this to happen,
> but if a plan was created, guidelines established and a majority of
> support for it, I believe it could happen.
> 
> Perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way, but I know at least 1 or
> 2 other people who would be in favour of such a plan.  And yes, I
> realize by proposing this I am volunteering as a moderator :)
> 
> Thanks,
> Leif Madsen.
> http://www.leifmadsen.com

1. If the volume is too much, unsubscribe and read the Daily Asterisk 
News :-)  (see footer).

2. This is really not a discussion of Asterisk code development.  (The 
more people post to -dev because of the signal to noise ratio, the worse 
the -dev list gets).

3. I kinda feel the system we have in place works the majority of the 
time.  When someone top-posts/html posts etc I (and probably others) 
send an off-list reply to the etiquitte violator informing them of their 
error. :-)  The only reason we changed to this was that people were sick 
of getting "don't send html emails" 10 times for every html mail :-)

4. Maybe you need to make up a new word for it - moderation is not in my 
vocabulary :-)

5. If all else fails, I'd be willing to help too.

-- 
Cheers,

Matt Riddell
_______________________________________________

Daily Asterisk News:
http://www.sineapps.com/news.php for html
http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php for rss