[chat] Flame wars...

[Ken Foskey <foskey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From the minutes:
> 
> Tony felt that committee members should generally stay out of
> flamewars or "heated discussion", as they generally end up having
> to apologise and back off because people perceive that they are
> pushing a "committee line". Jeff felt that it was sometimes
> important to get involved in these discussions, and Jaime
> reserved the right to say whatever she likes on-list.

This comment struck a nerve with me.  This is more of a worrying nagging
doubt than an outright issue I have with anything that has happened
lately.

The last time we had a flame war on someone who voiced the opinion that
a particular innovation was crap.  I felt that if we had casually passed
over the comment then it would have died into the archives. Anyone could
have posted the reasons why they though it was good without prejudice on
the others opinions, they are entitled to their opinions after all, even
when they are just plain wrong.  (That guy who said the world was round
springs to mind.)

I see the attacks on opinions and then the person when they don't back
off can sometimes be worse than just letting it ride a little.  We
should have a freedom of speech approach, if someone says I love
Windows, then let them have their moment of glory on the Linux mailing
list.  If someone is deriding your favourite tool or site or ??? then
ask them for more detail so others can fix the problem.  Request their
help rather than demand they fix it. If I criticise anything I ain't
going to run and fix it, I don't have time after the OSS project I am
working on.

I wonder if there is a less intrusive way of quashing troll bait or
poorly thought out posts.  Shorter, sweeter, less likely to flame up? 
Perhaps a little rejoiner that this is not necessarily the opinions of
the slug membership,  this is flawed because immediate arguments will be
"who says".

Regarding committee posts, unfortunately no matter when a committee
member posts it is perceived as a post from the committee.  With power
comes responsibility, I suppose.

If the committee moves to quash a particular thought or war on the list
it should be:

a) By committee majority.
b) Posted as a committee member
c) Wording confirmed by three members before posting.  Canned ones could
be predetermined by committee in advance.

This is a tough issue, I wish the committee luck dealing with it.

-- 
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer

PS: I reserve the right to be a pain in the arse as well :-)