Return-Path: <rusty@ozlabs.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E86FFDC8
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 00:51:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08F04E5
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 00:51:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
	id 534651402EC; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:51:00 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: "Bitcoin Dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:20:46 +1030
Message-ID: <87si1rycux.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
	RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Three Month bitcoin-dev Moderation Review
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 00:51:04 -0000

Hi all!

        As planned, this is the three month review[1]: discussion of how
moderation should change is encouraged in this thread.

        First, thanks to everyone for the restraint shown in sending
(and responding to!) inflammatory or sand-in-the-gears mails, and being
tolerant with our mistakes and variances in moderation.

The only changes we made to the plan so far:
1) We've stopped clearing the "needs mod" bit after first posts, and
2) Trivially answerable emails or proposals have been answered in the
   reject message itself.

You can see almost all (there was some lossage) rejects at:
        https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/

So, what should moderation look like from now on?
- Stop moderating altogether?
- Moderate <topic> more/less harshly?
- Use a different method/criteria for moderation?
- Add/remove moderators?
- Other improvements?

Thanks,
Rusty.
[1] http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-October/011591.html