Do we need a way to moderate mailing lists?

On Jan 15, 2021, at 21:51, Hemil Ruparel <hemilruparel2002@gmail.com>

wrote:

This is a meta discussion. I couldn't find a meta mailing list so I am

posting it here. This discussion sparked from this message.

If you feel someone is being disruptive, or abusive, there is a Code of
Conduct process:

https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/coc/
--
-- Christophe Pettus
xof@thebuild.com

I don't know on what basis should the complaint be made other than the
peron's entitlement

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:24 AM Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com>
wrote:

On Jan 15, 2021, at 21:51, Hemil Ruparel <hemilruparel2002@gmail.com>

wrote:

This is a meta discussion. I couldn't find a meta mailing list so I am

posting it here. This discussion sparked from this message.

If you feel someone is being disruptive, or abusive, there is a Code of
Conduct process:

https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/coc/
--
-- Christophe Pettus
xof@thebuild.com

On Jan 15, 2021, at 21:51, Hemil Ruparel <hemilruparel2002@gmail.com>

wrote:

It's my personal opinion. But i personally do not want to deal with

entitled people who cannot do basic google searches.

Well, I have to mention that you don't have to deal with them. It might
be slightly irritating to read questions like that, but they really aren't
choking the list, and you can just move on to a different question that you
feel like answering.

There is also a virtue in people asking very basic questions on the list,
even one that could be revealed by a search, because it gives people who
are not deep experts a chance to answer the question.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
xof@thebuild.com

On Jan 15, 2021, at 22:10, Hemil Ruparel <hemilruparel2002@gmail.com>

wrote:

I fear that mailing lists become like quora.

pgsql-general is almost old enough to drink. :) The very first message I
could find with a reliable date is from 31 May 2000. I think after nearly
21 years, we don't have much to worry about in that regard.

That message also includes the statements:

What you are asking for is replication, which is not easy to implement,

and almost damn impossible to get it RIGHT.

and

Now, what is WAL? When is it scheduled for implementation?

... which is pretty wild all by itself.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
xof@thebuild.com

On Jan 15, 2021, at 22:19, Hemil Ruparel <hemilruparel2002@gmail.com>

wrote:

I have no problems if there are one or two questions which are exactly

the same. I give them the benefit of doubt. What I won't tolerate are
entitled people who think we work for them for free and that they are
entitled to receive and answer.

I suppose it would be rude to point out that PostgreSQL list style is to
not top-post? I have to say, if you are going to be firm with people about
etiquette...

If someone gets abusive about not receiving help (and it does happen,
sadly), that's exactly the kind of thing the Code of Conduct was designed
for. If they are seriously spamming the list, likewise.

For a lot of people, though, they just aren't familiar with list
etiquette, do not have English as their first language and are not clear
what is being asked of them, or just don't know the resources out there.

I would assume they are acting in good faith. If you politely point out
resources to them and they get snappish, then it can become a CoC issue.
Otherwise, I think that being generous in what we receive and accurate in
what we reply, as with any protocol, is the right answer.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
xof@thebuild.com

On 1/15/21 10:51 PM, Hemil Ruparel wrote:

This is a meta discussion. I couldn't find a meta mailing list
<https://www.postgresql.org/list/&gt;so I am posting it here. This
discussion sparked from this message
</messages/by-id/937655834.1614113.1610725029956@mail.yahoo.com&gt;.

We should clearly mention on the postgres mailing list page
<https://www.postgresql.org/list/&gt; that people are encouraged to do
their own research and that we are a community of people who help for
free. And so we expect OP to do basic initial research. And the OP is
not entitled to receive an answer as we are not bound by any contract.
We spend our personal time away from our busy schedule to help others
and we have the right to choose who we give our time to.

Another important point is we need a mechanism to prevent polluting
our community. We need to raise the bar a little. Or we become like
quora. Where the same question is posted thousands of times with the
exact same wording. Stack Exchange has taken it to the extreme to the
point that it's become toxic for newbies. We need to be somewhere in
between. I propose when the first time someone posts such a question,
we give them the benefit of doubt and point them to resources which
they should consider before posting. Second time, we warn them not to
do this again and use the resources they have at their disposal. The
third time we should temporarily ban them (say for a week).

It's my personal opinion. But i personally do not want to deal with
entitled people who cannot do basic google searches.

I watched this sadness play out. It had nothing to do with the OP's
original question. Rather someone with feelings hurt from a separate
thread (table correlation) felt the need drag that squabble over to the
focal issue here (tools). I was tempted bring up the COC but I'm not
really a believer.

We see these flare ups almost as frequently as the repetition of the "tune
pg tool" request. They die out pretty quickly especially when an obvious
expert declines to waste any more of the offender's (offended's) time.

On 1/15/21 10:51 PM, Hemil Ruparel wrote:

This is a meta discussion. I couldn't find a meta mailing list
<https://www.postgresql.org/list/&gt; so I am posting it here. This
discussion sparked from this message
</messages/by-id/937655834.1614113.1610725029956@mail.yahoo.com&gt;
.

We should clearly mention on the postgres mailing list page
<https://www.postgresql.org/list/&gt; that people are encouraged to do their
own research and that we are a community of people who help for free. And
so we expect OP to do basic initial research. And the OP is not entitled to
receive an answer as we are not bound by any contract. We spend our
personal time away from our busy schedule to help others and we have the
right to choose who we give our time to.

Another important point is we need a mechanism to prevent polluting our
community. We need to raise the bar a little. Or we become like quora.
Where the same question is posted thousands of times with the exact same
wording. Stack Exchange has taken it to the extreme to the point that it's
become toxic for newbies. We need to be somewhere in between. I propose
when the first time someone posts such a question, we give them the benefit
of doubt and point them to resources which they should consider before
posting. Second time, we warn them not to do this again and use the
resources they have at their disposal. The third time we should temporarily
ban them (say for a week).

It's my personal opinion. But i personally do not want to deal with
entitled people who cannot do basic google searches.

On 1/15/21 11:43 PM, Hemil Ruparel wrote:

Exactly my point. We need to raise the bar of the behavior we
tolerate. This should not be tolerated. We need to set an example. The
person in question clearly understood english and I have never seen a
person who could use mailing lists but not google. So that's out of
the question.

We are not free consultants. And you are not entitled to shit. You are
probably being paid to work on that project. We are not. Your problem.
Fix it yourself. Or at least have to courtesy to google it.

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 12:06 PM Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com
<mailto:robjsargent@gmail.com>> wrote:

I watched this sadness play out.  It had nothing to do with the
OP's original question.  Rather someone with feelings hurt from a
separate thread (table correlation) felt the need drag that
squabble over to the focal issue here (tools).  I was tempted
bring up the COC but I'm not really a believer.

We see these flare ups almost as frequently as the repetition of
the "tune pg tool" request.  They die out pretty quickly
especially when an obvious expert declines to waste any more of
the offender's (offended's) time.

On 1/15/21 10:51 PM, Hemil Ruparel wrote:

This is a meta discussion. I couldn't find a meta mailing list
<https://www.postgresql.org/list/&gt;so I am posting it here. This
discussion sparked from this message
</messages/by-id/937655834.1614113.1610725029956@mail.yahoo.com&gt;.

We should clearly mention on the postgres mailing list page
<https://www.postgresql.org/list/&gt; that people are encouraged to
do their own research and that we are a community of people who
help for free. And so we expect OP to do basic initial research.
And the OP is not entitled to receive an answer as we are not
bound by any contract. We spend our personal time away from our
busy schedule to help others and we have the right to choose who
we give our time to.

Another important point is we need a mechanism to prevent
polluting our community. We need to raise the bar a little. Or we
become like quora. Where the same question is posted thousands of
times with the exact same wording. Stack Exchange has taken it to
the extreme to the point that it's become toxic for newbies. We
need to be somewhere in between. I propose when the first time
someone posts such a question, we give them the benefit of doubt
and point them to resources which they should consider before
posting. Second time, we warn them not to do this again and use
the resources they have at their disposal. The third time we
should temporarily ban them (say for a week).

It's my personal opinion. But i personally do not want to deal
with entitled people who cannot do basic google searches.

On Friday, January 15, 2021, Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> wrote:

On Jan 15, 2021, at 22:19, Hemil Ruparel <hemilruparel2002@gmail.com>

wrote:

I have no problems if there are one or two questions which are exactly

the same. I give them the benefit of doubt. What I won't tolerate are
entitled people who think we work for them for free and that they are
entitled to receive and answer.

I suppose it would be rude to point out that PostgreSQL list style is to
not top-post? I have to say, if you are going to be firm with people about
etiquette...

If someone gets abusive about not receiving help (and it does happen,
sadly), that's exactly the kind of thing the Code of Conduct was designed
for. If they are seriously spamming the list, likewise.

For a lot of people, though, they just aren't familiar with list
etiquette, do not have English as their first language and are not clear
what is being asked of them, or just don't know the resources out there.

I would assume they are acting in good faith. If you politely point out
resources to them and they get snappish, then it can become a CoC issue.
Otherwise, I think that being generous in what we receive and accurate in
what we reply, as with any protocol, is the right answer.

Agreed on all counts. It should take more than innocent subjective
inconsideration to get a ban or even a formal warning. With respect to
this flare up while heated and probably not flattering it has value and not
worthy of censure. For me the status quo fits into “good enough to keep my
attention elsewhere”. The areas I’d focus on, though, is site layout and
content, but in a positive manner, not rules listings and policies; and
also guidance and resources for “community defenders” on how constructively
engage when this kind of “meta” discussion arises. As I’m not volunteering
for the work this is just idle complaining and ideation on my part.

Oh, and an auto-responder instead of an FAQ...

David J.

On Friday, January 15, 2021, Hemil Ruparel <hemilruparel2002@gmail.com>
wrote:

I am not asking people to get banned the moment they ask easy questions.
I am 18. Believe me I have done that too (way more than i would like to
admit ;P). I am just saying we should guide them. But there are some people
who do not wish to be guided. They just want spoonfed answers which is
untolerable in my opinion. You need to be ready to learn on your own. And
attempt to struggle with your problem for at least a few hours before
asking for help

Please consider taking the not top-posting request to heart.

This is part of what I was referring to - while you feel strongly about
this position the moderators are not going to ban people for this behavior,
nor should they. The community can impose a punishment by simply not
responding, or can avoid conflict by giving answers, while some cases
result in attempts to educate (which I do on occasion...and which frankly,
and correctly, puts me out there for needing rebuke/support as a community
representative moreso than the questioner).

There is a lot of grey here and untolerable doesn’t fit well and you will
need to make a personal decision if you find yourself keeping score and
simply reading that kind of email causes discomfort. On that point, I will
say that my innate emotional response is quite similar and that I get
concerned that I act in counter-productive and unhealthy ways at times.
But its not the responsibility of the project to prevent exposing me to
situations where my highly judgmental nature is riled, and it should tell
me if I fail to control my response to that emotion. At the same time,
acknowledging that people such as myself do generally positively represent
the community it is does behoove them to consider providing support/tools
that can mitigate this human aspect of the request/reply dynamic.

David J.

Hemil Ruparel <hemilruparel2002@gmail.com> writes:

Exactly my point. We need to raise the bar of the behavior we tolerate.
This should not be tolerated. We need to set an example. The person in
question clearly understood english and I have never seen a person who
could use mailing lists but not google. So that's out of the question.

We are not free consultants. And you are not entitled to shit. You are
probably being paid to work on that project. We are not. Your problem.

Fix

it yourself. Or at least have to courtesy to google it.

While I can understand your frustration, I disagree with your position.

It is too subjective and difficult to apply/adopt such a strong position
and could too easily backfire, resulting in a perception of an elitist,
unwelcoming and unfriendly community.

Banning should be reserved for the most serious and abusive cases.
Banning because someone appears to be acting entitled or lazy is hard to
assess in a non-bias manner and likely has too much cultural variation
to applied consistently. Someone you feel who is being entitled or lazy
might be someone I feel is frustrated, may lack good communication
and/or social skills or might simply be immature and in need of some
guidance and education. My response may also differ depending on my own
state of mind and mood at the time when I read the message.

I've been on the postgres lists for some years now and to be honest,
have not noticed this type of issue very often. There are occasionally
rude and lazy individuals who may appear to be acting entitled, but they
soon go away. In some respects, the list is self-moderating because
people who do act poorly soon get ignored and their messages die out
with no responses.

The great benefit of lists like these is that you can just ignore anyone
you think are rude, entitled or fail to put in the effort you believe is
warranted before their question/issue needs attention. Many mail clients
will even allow you to 'block' specific senders. I have done this once
with someone from a different list. I don't know if they are still
behaving badly as now I never see their messages.

My advice would be to just delete and move on, a luxury you don't have
when you are employed and paid to deal with such messages, which is one
reason I don't like or have the temperament to fulfil the difficult
service/support desk roles which too often maligned and fail to get the
recognition they deserve.

Tim

In my furstration, I never thought about the self moderation effect.
Thanks Tim

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 1:14 PM Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> wrote:

Hemil Ruparel <hemilruparel2002@gmail.com> writes:

Exactly my point. We need to raise the bar of the behavior we tolerate.
This should not be tolerated. We need to set an example. The person in
question clearly understood english and I have never seen a person who
could use mailing lists but not google. So that's out of the question.

We are not free consultants. And you are not entitled to shit. You are
probably being paid to work on that project. We are not. Your problem.

Fix

it yourself. Or at least have to courtesy to google it.

While I can understand your frustration, I disagree with your position.

It is too subjective and difficult to apply/adopt such a strong position
and could too easily backfire, resulting in a perception of an elitist,
unwelcoming and unfriendly community.

Banning should be reserved for the most serious and abusive cases.
Banning because someone appears to be acting entitled or lazy is hard to
assess in a non-bias manner and likely has too much cultural variation
to applied consistently. Someone you feel who is being entitled or lazy
might be someone I feel is frustrated, may lack good communication
and/or social skills or might simply be immature and in need of some
guidance and education. My response may also differ depending on my own
state of mind and mood at the time when I read the message.

I've been on the postgres lists for some years now and to be honest,
have not noticed this type of issue very often. There are occasionally
rude and lazy individuals who may appear to be acting entitled, but they
soon go away. In some respects, the list is self-moderating because
people who do act poorly soon get ignored and their messages die out
with no responses.

The great benefit of lists like these is that you can just ignore anyone
you think are rude, entitled or fail to put in the effort you believe is
warranted before their question/issue needs attention. Many mail clients
will even allow you to 'block' specific senders. I have done this once
with someone from a different list. I don't know if they are still
behaving badly as now I never see their messages.

My advice would be to just delete and move on, a luxury you don't have
when you are employed and paid to deal with such messages, which is one
reason I don't like or have the temperament to fulfil the difficult
service/support desk roles which too often maligned and fail to get the
recognition they deserve.

Tim