Forums properties and methods

I'd like this thread to be a continuation of this one, this time under the correct topic so there can be no complaints of thread hijacking. I was hoping that, as per frodon's excellent suggestion, a moderator would have been the one to start such a thread, but unfortunately that does not appear to have happened in the past eight+ hours so I'm starting it instead. There has already been too much delay in dealing with the situation.

Please keep the thread civil. If any trolls show up along the way I ask that those of you who want to continue the serious discussion just ignore them. Seriously, ignore them...if you can't bring yourself to just skip their posts without biting, perhaps just add them to your Ignore List so you don't have to see their posts at all.

Now then, my viewpoints... Quite simply, they are my viewpoints. I don't demand that anyone necessarily like them or agree with them.

I--and I don't believe I am alone here--have some serious issues with some of the properties of these forums, both when viewed on their own and also when viewed as an entity within the larger Ubuntu picture. I'd like to start with the latter.

These forums are designated as the "Official Ubuntu Forums". Yet from what I see, the administration of these forums wants to be independent and autonomous, which is perfectly fine since ubuntu-geek foots so much of the bill. They are his forums to do with as he pleases. But if these forums are to be autonomous, then it should be made clear to the users that they are not official. I would much prefer they remain official...but not if the "Official" label is an empty one.

I am concerned that the forum dispute resolution proposal has apparently stalled. The recent Automatix-related threads should show why an *independent* dispute resolution team needs to be in place as soon as possible, yet it has been over a month since any related pages that I could find on the wiki have even been updated. I urge the forum administration to do whatever they are able to speed the review and implementation process along. I also ask that the forum userbase be kept up-to-date on the proposal. After all this is, as you say, our forum (figuratively speaking).

Also, there's the Ubuntu Document Storage Facility. I've read this thread through several times, attempting to disregard the condescending messages posted by a forum staff member at a regular user, and the conclusion I come to is that UDSF is not a good idea. Now--and this part is important--I am not in any way trying to limit choices or tell people they can't start another wiki. I see no problem with a wiki that competes with the Official Ubuntu Wiki. The problem I see is with a wiki that competes with the Official Ubuntu Wiki *when the competing wiki is started and maintained by an official team that claims to be an official arm of the same body that the official wiki is.* That distinction is key.

Finally, I have grave concerns with the censorship, and along with that the lack of transparency, on these forums. I've already posted my views on this, so I'll quote myself... First, I am against deleting anything. What is said in a public forum should remain public. Furthermore, if someone is offended by a particular poster, the offended one can ignore the offender...and I mean that literally: the offended person can place the offensive person on her or his Ignore List.

That being said, it seems pretty clear that the forum staff will continue to use censorship regardless of what anyone says. So, ignoring the fact that I disagree with censorship at all, I still see a big problem in that the forum staff members wield the power of censorship haphazardly and inconsistently. Are you honestly telling me that none of the forum staff made any personal attacks against azz in this thread? Why is it that forum staff--who should know better than others not to post things like that and who should lead by example--don't have to follow the same rules as the rest of the users? It's blatant "do as I say, not as I do". And this thread is not the first time this has happened. I want to be as fair as possible so I must say that not all of the forum staff, but many do. Some of them who do, do so only rarely but there are a couple who are consistently abrasive and who have violated the forum guidelines a number of times. I have no doubt that if they were regular users there would have been repercussions long ago. These double standards are unacceptable.

Allow me to reiterate what I said in my quote. First, I am against censorship. *Nothing* should be removed from the public's view once it has been in the public's view. To quote KingBahamut (from this thread, though he has said it other times in other threads (and his signature): Again, as previously stated by myself more than once, Choice is important to the user. Without Choice the user is directed and controled. I admire your efforts for giving choice to the user. I do believe choice is important to the user. That is why I would like the choice to read or not to read *all* threads and *all* posts that were posted in the public's view. If a thread or part of a thread is deleted then my choice to read that material (an especially important aspect if the material is referred to by non-deleted threads/posts) is being taken away and I am being "directed and controlled". Furthermore, I feel that anything that pertains to forum business should be in the public's view. I recall the Community Council having the same stance and was very pleased when it made the suggestion to make the staff business forums read-only for the public. I was disappointed to see that has yet to happen.

Second, reasonable guidelines can and should be enforced. They should be enforced *equally* regardless of forum status, regardless of whether or not the staff agrees or disagrees with a poster, and regardless of personal relationships between the staff and certain forum users.

I think that about covers what I wanted to put down in this post. While my primary goal is for an open dialog between anyone with concerns about how the forums are being managed and the forums staff, everyone is encouraged to post their views.

Thanks, Eric

So....this

These forums are designated as the "Official Ubuntu Forums". Yet from what I see, the administration of these forums wants to be independent and autonomous, which is perfectly fine since ubuntu-geek foots so much of the bill. They are his forums to do with as he pleases. But if these forums are to be autonomous, then it should be made clear to the users that they are not official. I would much prefer they remain official...but not if the "Official" label is an empty one.

Plus this:

The problem I see is with a wiki that competes with the Official Ubuntu Wiki *when the competing wiki is started and maintained by an official team that claims to be an official arm of the same body that the official wiki is.* That distinction is key.

indicates that even though you don't prefer for the forums to be unofficial, doing so would resolve most of the problems you have with the forum and KB's document site?

That will be taken into consideration.

That is correct, poofyhairguy. I strongly believe that Ubuntu needs forums such as these. These forums are good...they help a lot of users which is definitely good. But if the forums are to be official I think they need to stop taking such a go-it-alone route and should follow the pillars of Ubuntu--such as the CoC and the policy of openness--*all* of the time, not just when it suits the management.

That is my opinion, and thank you for the reply.

I will make two quick points here .

[U]Ubuntu Forum Staff

[/U]Its important to keep in mind that the staff of these Forums are unpaid volunteers that put in many hours of work for the benefit of Ubuntu and the benefit of members and guest of this forum. They are human , they make mistakes, they get tired they get grumpy.

[U]Censorship

[/U]It occurs everywhere that is life. The Utopian ideal that it is not needed is wrong .On this forum it will occur where there is breaches of the rules or it is offensive. It is normal practice in most online forums to moderate contributions. Ubuntu Forums is no different. We are open and up front that these are moderated forums.

Generally a warning is given before action is taken , but that is not always possible.The staff do discuss these often before and after the event.

Deleting posts or locking threads is not taken lightly but will be done if the need arises.

I happen to agree for the most part:

1. Way too much energy gets spent on keeping the forums official. If they are, they are, but it also seems the forum staff and the community council don't always see eye to eye on stuff, and I don't see any reason why the forums must remain official if they want to be autonomous.

1. I do think that "censorship" in some form or another needs to exist in order for the forums to remain useful and safe. However, transparency is not a bad thing either. That's why I dig the idea of the Backyard. If things get out of hand--rather than closing the thread--you can send it to the Backyard.

Truly offensive posts can go to Jail - unwanted posts, but regular users should be able to see what's in there if they want to.

1. As for double standards, I think scolding other moderators in public is unprofessional, and if staff think other staff are acting inappropriately, that should be handled in-house... but it should be handled.

As KiwiNZ points out, though, moderators are human and unpaid. They make mistakes. They have tempers, just like the rest of us. I just quit being a moderator partly because it's tough mental work--always trying to figure out what's the right thing to do. Could moderators improve? Sure. But when you're not doing something full-time as an official job, and you have little training, well... you do your best, but it won't be flawless.

That is correct, poofyhairguy. I strongly believe that Ubuntu needs forums such as these. These forums are good...they help a lot of users which is definitely good. But if the forums are to be official I think they need to stop taking such a go-it-alone route and should follow the pillars of Ubuntu--such as the CoC and the policy of openness--*all* of the time, not just when it suits the management.

I can promise you that if we go unofficial we won't go away. We will just become one of the many (the largest) unofficial Ubuntu forums on the internet.

Its not my decision at all. I am staff, but its not may call. Not even 1%. But I think that in the end the forum going unofficial may be the best solution. Why?

1. Its unfair we are the official forum with so many good non official ones.

1. The Ubuntu government system and the "official" ideals of transparency do not work best for a forum. Ubuntu official is best served by something like a wiki.

1. The forums here run on non GPL software. That does not mesh well with the Ubuntu ideals, but its the best software for the job and its what we are used to. To change would be to start over.

1. The problems on the forum are causing problems with the overall Ubuntu community- the CC should never have to waste its time on a web forum's issues.

1. By going unofficial, we change one thing (the name). Accourding to your claims (many of which I agree with), saying official and being consistent will take a lot of work and would lead to changes that might not be worth it.

1. This forum is mostly privately funded, and Geek does not get the credit for that he deserves now. Most people think this is Mark's forum, paid for with Mark's money. Geek deserves to have his contributions be known.

1. The forum has ALWAYS taken the side of unofficial Ubuntu projects when many other parts of official Ubuntu didn't. Backports, the Ubuntu Guide, and Automatix are all an example of this. To stay consistent we here at the forums would have to be uptight about future projects like many other parts of official Ubuntu to stay consistent and I don't want to do that. I've liked our stance on things like the Ubuntu Guide so far (compared to the stance of say, the doc team or the IRC team on the issue).

1. We staff don't get paid for helping here- why be official if its not to get some of Mark's money? (joking).

1. If we went unofficial, then maybe we could find a way to work better with the other unofficial forums that are not English-based. Maybe a link at the top for the French forum, the German one, etc.

1. If we went unofficial I could moderate like Stalin without having the whole humanity thng being thrown in my face. (joking again)

1. We staff don't get paid for helping here- why be official if its not to get some of Mark's money? (joking). You say you're joking, but I think there's some truth to this, Poofy. Sometimes people have the mistaken assumption that staff here are paid and "official" employees of Canonical.

They'd be less likely to think so if we were unofficial forums.

You say you're joking, but I think there's some truth to this, Poofy. Sometimes people have the mistaken assumption that staff here are paid and "official" employees of Canonical.

They'd be less likely to think so if we were unofficial forums.

Agreed. I'm a little tired of representing Ubuntu and all its glory. Its makes the whole thing much harder. When I say "Dapper won't have blank" its ALWAYS my opinion, but does everyone know that?

Absolutely, KiwiNZ and aysiu...nobody is perfect. It's understandable that occasionally--*occasionally*--moderators' behavior might slip. When it becomes repetitive, however...

Aysiu, you also bring up a good point about "scolding" in public. Having had several years of quasi-military experience (Civil Air Patrol, if anybody is interested) I know all about the philosophy of praising in public and disciplining in private. Applying that to these forums...if you take the stance that moderators should not be scolded in public then all I ask is for consistency: regular users shouldn't be scolded in public either. If regular users are scolded in public then moderators should be as well. The same goes with censorship. Once again, I am very much against any deletions...but if the censorship is to continue, then if regular users are censored for personal attacks the staff should be censored for personal attacks as well. In my mind, the forum staff works for the users. Whatever applies to the users should apply to the staff.

Thank you both, KiwiNZ and aysiu, for your comments.

Absolutely, KiwiNZ and aysiu...nobody is perfect. It's understandable that occasionally--*occasionally*--moderators' behavior might slip. When it becomes repetitive, however...

Aysiu, you also bring up a good point about "scolding" in public. Having had several years of quasi-military experience (Civil Air Patrol, if anybody is interested) I know all about the philosophy of praising in public and disciplining in private. Applying that to these forums...if you take the stance that moderators should not be scolded in public then all I ask is for consistency: regular users shouldn't be scolded in public either. If regular users are scolded in public then moderators should be as well. The same goes with censorship. Once again, I am very much against any deletions...but if the censorship is to continue, then if regular users are censored for personal attacks the staff should be censored for personal attacks as well. In my mind, the forum staff works for the users. Whatever applies to the users should apply to the staff.

Thank you both, KiwiNZ and aysiu, for your comments.

macgyver you make some very good points and something I will take to the forum staff team.

Applying that to these forums...if you take the stance that moderators should not be scolded in public then all I ask is for consistency: regular users shouldn't be scolded in public either. If regular users are scolded in public then moderators should be as well. I don't agree with this at all. I have experience in school settings, mainly as a teacher in both public and private schools. While humiliating a student in public is not advised, sometimes you have to scold them in public to make a point to the other students and/or because you don't have time to pull them aside. You never ever scold another teacher in public, though, unless the teacher is beating down a student with a lead pipe.

Teachers, supervisors, parents, and... yes, moderators... need to appear to the people they oversee as a united front.

In my mind, the forum staff works for the users. Whatever applies to the users should apply to the staff. I can agree in terms of behavioral standards but not disciplinary ones.

**macgyver2]

I am concerned that the forum dispute resolution proposal has apparently stalled. The recent Automatix-related threads should show why an *independent* dispute resolution team needs to be in place as soon as possible, yet it has been over a month since any related pages that I could find on the wiki have even been updated. We have since decided against enacting a resolution team.

The problem I see is with a wiki that competes with the Official Ubuntu Wiki *when the competing wiki is started and maintained by an official team that claims to be an official arm of the same body that the official wiki is.* That distinction is key. The doc facility is an extension of this forum and a way for us to keep our knowledgebase alive and not buried under millions of threads. Simply because we chose a wiki to store our information does not mean it is in competition with the Official Wiki. That is like saying the forums are in competition with the Wiki.

Finally, I have grave concerns with the censorship, and along with that the lack of transparency, on these forums. I've already posted my views on this, so I'll quote myself... This is not a free-speech forum said:**

I want to be as fair as possible so I must say that not all of the forum staff, but many do. Some of them who do, do so only rarely but there are a couple who are consistently abrasive and who have violated the forum guidelines a number of times. I have no doubt that if they were regular users there would have been repercussions long ago. These double standards are unacceptable.

I have told my staff to sit on their hands for too long; if anything, I have been harsher on my staff than anyone else on these forums in what they are allowed to do. I have since removed my instructions to sit on their hands. I will not tolerate staff being harassed any longer.

Furthermore, I feel that anything that pertains to forum business should be in the public's view. I recall the Community Council having the same stance and was very pleased when it made the suggestion to make the staff business forums read-only for the public. I was disappointed to see that has yet to happen. We have decided not to implement that suggestion; I do not think we will in the future, either.

So does Launchpad, your point being?

1. The forums here run on non GPL software.

Backports went official, most of UbuntuGuide was used as a basis for the StarterGuide now shipping with Breezy, and the issue about Automatix was more to do with Arnieboy's attitude toward the GPL than anything else.

1. The forum has ALWAYS taken the side of unofficial Ubuntu projects when many other parts of official Ubuntu didn't. Backports, the Ubuntu Guide, and Automatix are all an example of this. To stay consistent we here at the forums would have to be uptight about future projects like many other parts of official Ubuntu to stay consistent and I don't want to do that. I've liked our stance on things like the Ubuntu Guide so far (compared to the stance of say, the doc team or the IRC team on the issue).

the issue about Automatix was more to do with Arnieboy's attitude toward the GPL than anything else.

How did he have an attitude? The man hadn't licensed his work publicly, so I help him rectify the problem when an issue appeared.

Then, because he's a very generous man, a couple of days later he decides to release all of his code under the gpl.

Thank you for your reply kassetra. There are a few points that I would on which I would request further clarification/explanation and a few I would like to comment on.

**kassetra]We have since decided against enacting a resolution team.

Yes, I was starting to get that impression. But *why* did you (whoever was involved in the decision) decide against this? You're really taking a shot to your credibility.

The doc facility is an extension of this forum and a way for us to keep our knowledgebase alive and not buried under millions of threads. Simply because we chose a wiki to store our information does not mean it is in competition with the Official Wiki. That is like saying the forums are in competition with the Wiki. Hmm...I don't understand how that is quite the same comparison. Forums are a different form of communication than wikis. Saying the forums are in competion with the wiki is not like saying the wiki is in competition with the wiki.

This is not a free-speech forum said:**

Once again I take issue with that. You close or jail all material that does not belong here *with the exception of* posts made by staff members/preferred users.

If you'll notice, I haven't argued against locking threads. A few threads I've been involved in on these forums have been closed and I have requested them reopened, giving justification, and they have been graciously reopened. Others I have been involved with have been closed because they decayed and were no longer civil or on topic and I moved on. Keep locking what you see fit, but it is not right to delete. Once something is posted in a public forum it should remain there. Otherwise, when the staff claims there is a violation of the guidelines, and the people say prove it, how are you to do so?

I have told my staff to sit on their hands for too long; if anything, I have been harsher on my staff than anyone else on these forums in what they are allowed to do. I have since removed my instructions to sit on their hands. I will not tolerate staff being harassed any longer. I was under the impression that the word 'ubuntu' means 'humanity towards others', not 'humanity towards others...unless those others are being annoying or asses...then to hell with them'.

I don't know the specifics your 'sit on their hands' instructions but I don't think that matters. At no point should the staff be allowed to break the rules. They should not be above the law. I just do not see how you can justify the staff responding to harassment *with* harassment.

Also, from what I've seen, a lot of what you consider harassment is a regular user pointing out that a staff member is not following the rules. If you consider that harassment, and regular users can't do that, then I ask who moderates the moderators? And if you say 'other moderators'...how do we the public know that?

Finally, pertaining to giving the public read-only access to the staff's forum business section... We have decided not to implement that suggestion; I do not think we will in the future, either. Once again, *why* have you decided not to implement that suggestion? I believe it's very important. If these are our (the users) forums then why aren't we privy to how our forums are run? The users support these forums in a variety of ways...by rendering assistance to others, telling new Ubuntu users to take a look at the forums, monetary donations. I know if *I'm* to continue to so do I would *much* rather be able to see how my contributions are being used.

Thanks again.

Edit: I just wanted to clarify something...usually when I said 'you' in this thread I meant 'you, the forum staff' and not 'you, kassetra'.

So does Launchpad, your point being?

Yeah, but at least Ubuntu controls launchpad to some degree. Not the same at all with the forum software creator. Its a very closed piece of software.

Backports went official, most of UbuntuGuide was used as a basis for the StarterGuide now shipping with Breezy, and the issue about Automatix was more to do with Arnieboy's attitude toward the GPL than anything else.

These large acts of acceptance didn't just happen on the spot. Each project had to go through a tough unofficial period before it was accepted by the official community. Yet in each case the Ubuntu Forums gave support from the beginning.

They should not be above the law. I just do not see how you can justify the staff responding to harassment with harassment.

Trust me... we are not above the law... but to say we respond to harassment with harassment... is well... funny... as many of us have suffered MORE than harassment...

We have put up with... abuse... and tried to remain tolerant...

Then the infighting starts... we tell the users to discuss in a civilized manner... or face the repercussions (as ANY staff on ANY form will)... but that makes us the villian...

Why??? because the 'humanity to others' creedo does not allow for us to be respected as any other user... Because we are staff, there seems to be a general concencus from a certian group within the cc that we should only qualify as puppets... not as people...

The really sad part... Just like any other political movement... they resort to propaganda and mud slinging to attempt to ruin things... kinda ironic that their actions are the ones causing harm to the community they claim to represent...

Once again I take issue with that. You close or jail all material that does not belong here *with the exception of* posts made by staff members/preferred users.

Actually, the trend recently has been moving stuff to the backyard. We all haven't got the hang of it, but that because I keep hogging the training video.

Keep locking what you see fit, but it is not right to delete. Once something is posted in a public forum it should remain there. Otherwise, when the staff claims there is a violation of the guidelines, and the people say prove it, how are you to do so?

Just so you know, I don't that deletion of threads ever goes on. The are moved to the jail or the backyard. A lot of my forum projects chill in the jail too.

If you consider that harassment, and regular users can't do that, then I ask who moderates the moderators?

Time.

Once again, *why* have you decided not to implement that suggestion?

Maybe because of me. I cuss in there a lot. Most would have to be backyarded. And that place gives me the creeps.

How did he have an attitude? The man hadn't licensed his work publicly, so I help him rectify the problem when an issue appeared.

Then, because he's a very generous man, a couple of days later he decides to release all of his code under the gpl.

Can I suggest that where there is a dispute over facts, as this is, that it is probably best for moderators not to take sides? If you do then you will inevitably be accused of bias from someone.

Surely the major part of a moderators role is moderating the form of discussions not their content?

Note that as to the Wiki/Doc Storage issue, we DID try first to make it a part of the Ubuntu Wiki (as the Forum/Wiki Delta), but it was removed by the Doc team, and members of the doc team wrote slandering messages on our forum staff's Wiki pages.

We tried, but were not welcome. That's that.

Surely the major part of a moderators role is moderating the form of discussions not their content?

I think that that is a good point to consider.

I am happy to read this thread, because the discussion is held cool, but nonetheless determined. I hope that this will help in further discussions and I hope that before posting everybody will use a calm brain and not post immediately with some hard feelings.

Today, after reading the Automatix-thread and other dependants :shock: , I lost some illusions about the forum and some of its members (moderators and "normal" users alike):cry:. After this thread I feel a little better and I hope, after a while, I'll feel comfortable like before again.

Have a peacefull Advent,O:)

Rooster

Then the infighting starts... we tell the users to discuss in a civilized manner... or face the repercussions (as ANY staff on ANY form will)... but that makes us the villian... Repercussions should not include personal attacks. Staff should no better. if they don't know better and keep it up they should not be staff.

That being said, I do realize the staff will be the target of harassment. But being a staff member has costs. I keep getting the vibe (not specifically from the post I'm responding to) that some staff members have the belief that because they devote so much time and effort and patience to the job they should be paid with unquestioning loyalty. Staff members are doing an extra service for the community, yes...but this extra service requires extra sacrifices, including a whole lotta patience. Staff members should realize that before accepting the position. If they can't or don't want to handle it then the job is not for them.

Why??? because the 'humanity to others' creedo does not allow for us to be respected as any other user... Because we are staff, there seems to be a general concencus from a certian group within the cc that we should only qualify as puppets... not as people... How have you addressed this? If this is how the staff sees things then it is a valid issue and needs to be addressed. I have yet to see a list of issues like the above presented to the CC for open dialog. Maybe I missed that. I think that really, *really* needs to happen, and not just as something triggered by a situation on the forums, and not just as a bullet point that's part of a larger general agenda. The feeling I get is that the CC doesn't realize the situation as something more than just some isolated incident. That's just my observation. I could be wrong. I know there were plans for a separate forums-specific meeting in #ubuntu-meeting. Did that ever happen?

From the CC meetings I've seen, either attended or read the transcripts after, I don't get that feeling. I thought I remembered at one point that Sabdfl was pretty clear that the CC *doesn't* want to just move in and make you puppets...just that there should be a bit more integration. I thought the dispute team would have done very well to fill the gap. When disputes involving staff arise, but are handled (internally and out of view of the public) by staff it really casts a shadow of impropriety. That is not to say I'm accusing anyone of actual impropriety here. However, I've seen actual impropriety other places (including other distro forums...the same ones these forums say they want to be different from and better than) to blindly trust that there is none based only on assurances by the staff.

Thanks darkmatter.

Just so you know, I don't that deletion of threads ever goes on. The are moved to the jail or the backyard. A lot of my forum projects chill in the jail too. I knew that. I suppose I could have been clearer. Instead of 'delete', from now on I'll make every attempt to use 'remove from public view'.

Note that as to the Wiki/Doc Storage issue, we DID try first to make it a part of the Ubuntu Wiki (as the Forum/Wiki Delta), but it was removed by the Doc team, and members of the doc team wrote slandering messages on our forum staff's Wiki pages.

We tried, but were not welcome. That's that. I was unaware that happened. I remember talk of a forum-wiki team but I was under the impression it died in the discussion stage.

How was this alleged abuse by the doc-team members handled? After it occurred, did you take it up the proper channels to seek a resolution? I am incredibly doubtful that stuff like that would be sanctioned by Sabdfl and the CC.

I have used Ubuntu for several months now, and been a regular reader of this forum. I have found a tremendous amount of helpful information here and compared to other distro forums I have looked at, there is far more information and many more helpful people here.

My concern is that recently there seems to be more and more disharmony within the larger ubuntu community that I feel is threatening to reduce the ubuntu community to the level of many of the other "not so nice" forums. It is understandable as any organization grows larger (and I speak of the "organization" as being the whole Ubuntu community, not just Canonical) there is bound to be different groups with different objectives and they will come into conflict. There is the wiki verses wiki fight, the official against unoffical fight, the gpl verses non-gpl, free and not free, ubuntuguide against wiki guide, etc.

The issue with all of this, is that for the average and more importantly, new user we become more and more confused about who and what to believe ("automatix will mess up your system", "no it won't"). Members of the forums and Ubuntu staff who have gained a well deserved reputation of knowledge and expertise and who most of us on these forums trust when they post information are starting to spend that reputation capital on these arguements. When the experts of this forum fight, it reduces the positive reputation of this forum and reduces our confidence in it. A new member of the forum, or one who has been around for a while (me) become confused about all of the fighting and disagreement going on. We begin to feel like the children of a couple heading for divorce, they fight and we sit in our rooms under the covers wondering what is going to happen to us.

So after my long-winded preamble, those involved in these disagreements need to find away to resolve them in a way that is best for the community at-large. All involved need to see the bigger picture and work towards cooperative solutions that will aid the growth of Ubuntu as the best supported linux distro instead of making it like so many others. Do all of these disagreements need to be laid out in the forums for all to see? Does this really serve anybody? Is there a way for these issues to be resolved outside of the forums as I don't know that any one outside of the disagreements is able to have any affect on it any way (many of the long threads on these issues seem to be a lot of back and forth between a few people).

As a brief comment on the role of the moderators. It is clearly a difficult position to do, for free, with your own time. Certainly, with the growth of the Ubuntu community, there are far more posts now than there were just a few months ago which makes the job of moderating that much more difficult. As a possible solution, is there a way for the moderators to have two names, avatars, accounts, whatever you want to distinguish them in two different ways. One, for them to use as an official moderator, correcting improper posts, closing threads,etc. and one for when they are acting as a regular forum user, offering suggestions, getting involved in discussions and/or arguments. This might alleviate some of the issue when the mods get involved in disputes and it looks like they are using their position to manage the discussion. The mods could ensure that if they are acting as mods and as members of a discussion, they do it in two different posts, one as a moderator, one as a forum member.

I was unaware that happened. I remember talk of a forum-wiki team but I was under the impression it died in the discussion stage. As an addendum to this...

Here is an instance where I feel that more openness would benefit you as well as the regular user.

I had no idea that the forum-wiki team was being undertaken (noting also that I posted an interest in helping such a team out). I've looked in the forum announcements section and don't see anything about it there. The first announcement of a wiki nature anytime recently is the announcement of doc.gwos.org. Had there been more openness, regular users might have been far more likely to notice any sort of impropriety. I'm certain some of them (myself included) would have stood up and backed you in any complaint taken to the CC regarding the tampering. Not only would you have had a complaint registered in the proper channels, but you would have had a large body of Ubuntu users, and beyond users Ubuntu supporters, behind you.

These forums are approaching 60,000 members. That's a large resource in and of itself. Alienating users by maintaining closed policies is not a very effective way to tap that resource.

Thank you, timczer. Your entire post is excellent and I'm glad to see some newer users joining in this thread. As a brief comment on the role of the moderators. It is clearly a difficult position to do, for free, with your own time. Certainly, with the growth of the Ubuntu community, there are far more posts now than there were just a few months ago which makes the job of moderating that much more difficult. As a possible solution, is there a way for the moderators to have two names, avatars, accounts, whatever you want to distinguish them in two different ways. One, for them to use as an official moderator, correcting improper posts, closing threads,etc. and one for when they are acting as a regular forum user, offering suggestions, getting involved in discussions and/or arguments. This might alleviate some of the issue when the mods get involved in disputes and it looks like they are using their position to manage the discussion. The mods could ensure that if they are acting as mods and as members of a discussion, they do it in two different posts, one as a moderator, one as a forum member. I think that this is a *really* good suggestion. Not perfect, as some of the staff may grumble about it being a bit more of a hassle, but I really think it deserves good consideration.

Thanks again!

Note that as to the Wiki/Doc Storage issue, we DID try first to make it a part of the Ubuntu Wiki (as the Forum/Wiki Delta), but it was removed by the Doc team, and members of the doc team wrote slandering messages on our forum staff's Wiki pages.

We tried, but were not welcome. That's that.

I won't express an opinion on the main subject matter of this thread, but I want to quickly clarify this, because I am AMAZED that it has come up again.

The Forum/Wiki Delta was _created_ for the purpose of incorporating forum material into the wiki in an easy way. The whole purpose of it was to build bridges between the forum and the wiki.

So, as to the specific issue (which has been discussed with the person involved personally and resolved), the problem was that articles were being inserted into the main body of the wiki (and the index) without being finished (i.e. the formatting was incomplete and the style of the articles had not yet been perfected). The "slandering messages" were these (don't forget that the wiki is a revision control system so everything is logged):

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SteveMyers?action=diff&rev2=7&rev1=6 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SteveMyers?action=diff&rev2=8&rev1=7

Apart from those, I wrote an email to Steve in very polite terms: I didn't receive a reply.

I hardly believe that they constitute defamatory statements.

More importantly: the misunderstanding was put to bed some time ago by a private chat on irc between myself and Steve. It was a simple misunderstanding, and took 10 minutes to resolve. It is totally unacceptable to exagerrate what was a pure misunderstanding.

It is not correct that the forum members were not welcome on the wiki: everyone is welcome. In fact, forum members are more welcome than most, I have repeatedly posted messages (see the sticky in the howto section) about how forum members can contribute.

The GWOS doc storage facility is, as I understand it, and as Kassetra pointed out, intended to collect material from the forums as a knowledge base, and Kassetra said clearly that it has a different function from the wiki. Therefore, this whole business has absolutely nothing to do with forum members "not being welcome" on the wiki, and I hope that this will be the final post necessary to clear up the misunderstanding.

Please refrain from throwing any more wood on this particular fire.

Thanks,

Matt

I dissagree with a lot of the things said here. I fear, however that bringing it up will make it look like I am trolling. That is a symptom of the problem. We should not have to appologetically ask to discuss these issues.

"Note that as to the Wiki/Doc Storage issue, we DID try first to make it a part of the Ubuntu Wiki (as the Forum/Wiki Delta), but it was removed by the Doc team, and members of the doc team wrote slandering messages on our forum staff's Wiki pages."

Not true.

If anything, there was one conflict between one forum member who since left the forums. The Doc team has been supportive of helping a foum knowledgebase. They drew up guidelines and have offered to bend over backwards to accommodate the forum folks who want to contribute.

As for the Backyard, there needs to be guidelines on it's use. The fact that all the arniboy-related issues were hard deleted instead of moved there is an example of that.

As for the forums never being a part of the community, I think that is a top-down issue. The title of "official" should come with certain stipulations that priority is given to being part of the greater ubuntu community. A given forum should have to prove itself in that respect before becoming official.

See the attached logs of yesterday's CC meeting for an example of the attitude to which I refer. (logaf.txt, 11:47)

As for the staff being volunteer, well all the users volunteer their time and effort. It is wrong to disrespect those users by deleting their posts. You can moderate without deteling and supressing ideas. It *can* be done. There are a lot of people who would be willing to put in the (very little) extra effort to moderate that way. I suggest you use them.

As for the GPL issue. Arnieboy forked a GPL project. He cannot change the licence unless he removes all the original code - which he did not do. End of story.

(The full logs of the meeting were too big to include. I will make the beginning parts available, too. logaa.txt and logab.txt)

It's an interesting log ...

Thanks

Just so you know, the ENTIRE logs of the Community Council meeting can be found here: http://people.ubuntu.com/~fabbione/irclogs/ubuntu-meeting-2005-12-06.html

I'm not going to express any personal opinions on this whole stupid argument, suffice to say that I am in full agreement with Kass, and the Doc Storage Facility team

Thanks bonzo for the link, really easy to read with the colors ;)

The GWOS doc storage facility is, as I understand it, and as Kassetra pointed out, intended to collect material from the forums as a knowledge base, and Kassetra said clearly that it has a different function from the wiki. Therefore, this whole business has absolutely nothing to do with forum members "not being welcome" on the wiki, and I hope that this will be the final post necessary to clear up the misunderstanding.

I have no question about the welcomeness of users over this issue. I wouldnt have people cross linking stuff from one to the other on my side if I thought it were an issue. I disrespect Andrew's statements that the Doc is competeing against the Official Wiki itself, but there is nothing I can do about that. It serves a series of purposes that are unique and non competitor driven. If you cant see that , then dont. All I can do is try to improve my communications with mdke and the rest of the doc team.

Has anyone else noticed that it is actually easier to have a sensible discussion when we can all see the documents that we claim to be discussing?

I have no question about the welcomeness of users over this issue. I wouldnt have people cross linking stuff from one to the other on my side if I thought it were an issue. I disrespect Andrew's statements that the Doc is competeing against the Official Wiki itself, but there is nothing I can do about that. It serves a series of purposes that are unique and non competitor driven. If you cant see that , then dont. All I can do is try to improve my communications with mdke and the rest of the doc team. I'm afraid I don't understand how the Doc is not competing against the Official Wiki. I absolutely see the benefit of taking useful docs from the forums and placing them on a wiki...I just don't see at all why you need a *separate* wiki, regardless of whether or not you cross-link. In fact, the cross-linking thing sounds like something that would impact efficiency.

For the sake of linguistic precision.

I'm afraid I don't understand how the Doc is not competing against the Official Wiki. I absolutely see the benefit of taking useful docs from the forums and placing them on a wiki...I just don't see at all why you need a *separate* wiki, regardless of whether or not you cross-link. In fact, the cross-linking thing sounds like something that would impact efficiency.KB could explain you that better than me but the goals are not the same and the oficial wiki is and will always be the official wiki.

The DOC is a kind of database of useful informations comming from the forum, its goal is to be as near as possible of the forum. Besides, wiki writers could integrates some articles from the DOC to the wiki if they wish. I don't see any problems here. I personally also use and give links to the wiki when i give support in the forum and there isn't any confusion in my mind between what is the wiki and what is the DOC.

KB, it might be useful to create a thread (maybe sticky) which explain to the forum users what is the DOC and why it can't compete with the wiki.

It is not correct that the forum members were not welcome on the wiki: everyone is welcome. In fact, forum members are more welcome than most, I have repeatedly posted messages (see the sticky in the howto section) about how forum members can contribute. My $0.02. I have contributed several pages to the wiki as well as helped edit or contributed to other pages. It's not hard and in my experience forum members have been very welcome there.

"what is being wasted is the potential effort of forum users who are working against what is best for the Ubuntu community by participating in this third-party source of documentation" Nothing's being wasted. If effort and energy are that important to use efficiently, no one would be arguing in this or any other thread.

Thank you frodon, Teroedni, and kassetra...things are actually a bit clearer for me. And saying that our storage facility works against the community is absurd - it's our knowledgebase, a logical extension of the work we do. I hope it is remembered, though, that Ubuntuforum knowledge is a subset of Ubuntu knowledge and is always treated as such. This is a forum project. Doc is the forum knowledgebase; it is not a private project. And here is where more openness, or at the very least better communication with regular members, would be very helpful. I can easily see how it could look to some (including myself) that the Doc is a private project. I displayed an interest in helping with a forum-wiki team and never heard a thing about either the forum-wiki team or the Doc team that grew out of it. No worries, I'm not holding a grudge over it or anything. Just a suggestion for the future if a similar situation arises...keep the users up to date. Even if it's only a friendly message to say "thanks for your interest but your assistance isn't needed". Something like that goes a long way.

This is the last I'll say about the Doc. I appreciate the enlightenment that's been provided.

I hope it is remembered, though, that Ubuntuforum knowledge is a subset of Ubuntu knowledge and is always treated as such.

What the heck does that mean?

What the heck does that mean?

Is the Knowledge contained within the forum exclusive to only official docmentation sites?

Is such knowledge "owned" by all things Official?

It cannot be distributed? expressed in any other way that Officially?

Thats not very human.

Voltaire would be rolling in his grave at this thought I imagine.

I hope it is remembered, though, that Ubuntuforum knowledge is a subset of Ubuntu knowledge and is always treated as such. What the heck does that mean? The information that is being gleaned from the forums for the Doc was submitted to an official arm of the Ubuntu proper. I hope there will always be integration with the official Ubuntu docs even if the members maintaining the Doc leave the Ubuntu proper, either individually or as a whole.

Also to address azz's concern, I also agree that users should be exposed to the Doc in other places besides the forums. Not everyone uses the forums, so there should be information about the Doc elsewhere so other Ubuntu users can benefit. Semi-regular updates to the Fridge...just a thought. (I actually haven't even checked...maybe it's already been done.)

I've read this thread with interest and need to add a few thoughts about the doc. I've read time and again that the wiki is waiting with open arms for willing people to contribute. That may be so but I'd like to share a comparison of how a user goes about adding things to the respective wikis, when adding content authored by other forum users.

The Doc, as an extension of the forum allows the contributer to just transfer the howto or whatever and then give proper acknowledgment of the original author in the notes.... easy, quick and simple.

In contrast, adding this type of content to the wiki is convoluted and time consuming. First it is required to contact the author and gain their permission to transfer it. If you have any difficulties with that process you need to bring it to the DocTeam meetings to be discussed further. The whole process could take weeks to complete depending on the response of the author. In that time I could have added scores of how-tos to the doc and know that users have access to them in an easy to access and searchable format.

So the main problem for me isn't a willingness to contribute but the effectiveness of the relevant processes. I believe that this is why the Doc has has a loyal following and a team committed to its growth.

Is the Knowledge contained within the forum exclusive to only official docmentation sites?

Is such knowledge "owned" by all things Official?

It cannot be distributed? expressed in any other way that Officially?

Thats not very human.

Voltaire would be rolling in his grave at this thought I imagine. Absolutely not. Shared is fine. I would just like to think that [i]a copy[i/] of the Doc always stays as part of the official documentation even if the Doc moves elsewhere.

I must say, though, you do have an excellent flair for the dramatic KingBahamut. :)

The Doc, as an extension of the forum allows the contributer to just transfer the howto or whatever and then give proper acknowledgment of the original author in the notes.... easy, quick and simple. Informative comparison. Thanks. One clarification...what happens if the original author does not want her or his material on the Doc?

That issue goes back to a concept of what liscense the Forums run under, does it not? Yes it does. Has that ever been spelled out? Having something concrete might be all that's needed to save a lot of trouble in the future.

I am uncertain what is being accomplished by this thread? So far I see six pages repeated information and flaming.

Lets make a thread like this productive for once.

I am uncertain what is being accomplished by this thread? So far I see six pages repeated information and flaming.

Lets make a thread like this productive for once. What I saw was an honest-to-goodness plea that the forums have a change of policy for x, y, and z reasons.

Suddenly, it's devolved into the old Wiki v. Forums debates of old. Nothing new. Nothing new. And no one's going to back down.

Can we get back to the original topic?

I am uncertain what is being accomplished by this thread? So far I see six pages repeated information and flaming.

Lets make a thread like this productive for once. That was my intent.

Edit: Suddenly, it's devolved into the old Wiki v. Forums debates of old. Nothing new. Nothing new. And no one's going to back down.

Can we get back to the original topic? Well, I did mention the Doc in part of my original post. I think a lot of what was needed for me on that issue was more communication and openness, which was offered.

If a couple of flamers want to bicker, just ignore them. Don't forget the Ignore List, if it's necessary.

That was my intent. Cool someone did read my post..

Well, I did mention the Doc in part of my original post. I think a lot of what was needed for me on that issue was more communication and openness, which was offered.

If a couple of flamers want to bicker, just ignore them. Don't forget the Ignore List, if it's necessary. Okay, well... where does that leave us? I, for one, am in favor of never deleting stuff. If it gets bad, it should go to the Backyard. If it gets really bad, it can go to the Jail - unwanted posts, but regular users should be able to see what's in the jail.

Any thoughts on this--agreeing or disagreeing? I don't know if I'd go so far as to make the staff forums open to the public, but a certain amount of transparency makes sense.

Also, I think all this bickering is a good case for the forums going unofficial. Maybe it's just me.

P.S. In trying to get us back on track, I'm referencing this part of the original post: > I do believe choice is important to the user. That is why I would like the choice to read or not to read all threads and all posts that were posted in the public's view. If a thread or part of a thread is deleted then my choice to read that material (an especially important aspect if the material is referred to by non-deleted threads/posts) is being taken away and I am being "directed and controlled". Furthermore, I feel that anything that pertains to forum business should be in the public's view. I recall the Community Council having the same stance and was very pleased when it made the suggestion to make the staff business forums read-only for the public. I was disappointed to see that has yet to happen.

Comments off the top of my head...

1. Forum staff re-read http://ubuntuforums.org/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item_gp#faq_new_faq_item_gp_staff look at #8

1. It's the nature of the beast, some posts will need to be edited etc its a call someone has to make and its not pretty when it needs to happen its part of forum culture.

1. The jail is a trash bin for crap mostly spam however I do think some legit posts are getting moved there when they warrented a lock/close flag and I can address that situation.

Those are just three comments I have right now.

(speaking independently, not making any decision or expressing on the staff's behalf or anything like that):

Well,

(1) There has to be an extreme limit, such as posting content that would violate the laws where this server is being hosted (USA). These things, since they're retractable and legal cases in the US have before held forums liable for their contents, need to go.

(2) In straightforward tech support threads (i.e. someone asks a specific question in a specific thread), I feel it's perfectly legitimate to split posts from threads and otherwise reorganize content in a way that minimizes confusion and maximizes efficiency.

(3) If an increasingly heated discussion that arose off a point mentioned in such tech support threads, I think it's reasonable to take moderator action if it was getting in the way of answering the OP's question. That is, if a large number of OT posts are made, the thread be split. If it's just one post, deletion and PM'ing the poster to start the thread again elsewhere would also be appropriate.

I don't want to see any newcomers to the forum ask a simple question and never get it answered if a huge debate starts.

Okay, well... where does that leave us? I, for one, am in favor of never deleting stuff. If it gets bad, it should go to the Backyard. If it gets really bad, it can go to the Jail - unwanted posts, but regular users should be able to see what's in the jail. I agree with that...though it appears some posts in this thread have been deleted. :(

Also, I think all this bickering is a good case for the forums going unofficial. Maybe it's just me. I would hope they don't go unofficial. I think what needs to happen is for the forum admins and the CC to sit down and get everything out into the open...very clearly. I think that there are probably some misunderstandings on the part of the CC. If the CC members come to the forums, it's only very rarely. At the same time I think there are misunderstandings on the part of the forum staff. Contrary to some things I've read on the forums, I have yet to find any evidence of the CC saying they want to take over control of the forums. They'd like a few changes, yes...for example the dispute team. I think that's a good compromise, even if it's only used in disputes that involve forum staff as a party to the dispute. But back to the topic of (at least) this post... The forum staff and the CC need to sit down and make sure there are no misunderstandings. Only after that can things proceed.

QUOTE=jdong There has to be an extreme limit, such as posting content that would violate the laws where this server is being hosted (USA). These things, since they're retractable and legal cases in the US have before held forums liable for their contents, need to go. Absolutely.

QUOTE=jdong In straightforward tech support threads (i.e. someone asks a specific question in a specific thread), I feel it's perfectly legitimate to split posts from threads and otherwise reorganize content in a way that minimizes confusion and maximizes efficiency. Okay, that sounds good too. As long as reorganize does not include 'remove from public view' with the exception of anything that falls under your (1).

QUOTE=jdong If an increasingly heated discussion that arose off a point mentioned in such tech support threads, I think it's reasonable to take moderator action if it was getting in the way of answering the OP's question. That is, if a large number of OT posts are made, the thread be split. If it's just one post, deletion and PM'ing the poster to start the thread again elsewhere would also be appropriate. If posts are getting in the way...instead of removing them from the thread is there anyway that they could be greyed-out (dimmed)? Maybe something like that would satisfy the need to keep the thread on topic (the eyes can easily follow the non-dimmed posts) yet would not result in removal from the public eye. I have no knowledge of php, so I don't know if that's a possibility. If it is maybe it's something you could look into.

I agree with that...though it appears some posts in this thread have been deleted. :( No, they just got moved to another thread for some reason...

I would hope they don't go unofficial. Can I ask why?

I think that macgyver2 has raised some very good points here. I to would like to stay official. But I also understand that a lot goes on and its all very complacated.

Why should we stay official because I think that its important that there is an offical support forum, the mailing lists are not half as good as the forums.

But I do not know everything thats going on and could be wrong.

No, they just got moved to another thread for some reason...

Can I ask why?

Very productive and a sure sign of an open mind ready to discuss things intelligently.

Very productive and a sure sign of an open mind ready to discuss things intelligently. and your reply post was productive?.. Dude if you dont have anything positive to say dont do it.. last warning..

As long as reorganize does not include 'remove from public view' with the exception of anything that falls under your (1). Correct. If the thread seems to be forking in several directions, we will split the posts into new threads. There shouldn't be IRC style crossfire in forum threads.

If posts are getting in the way...instead of removing them from the thread is there anyway that they could be greyed-out (dimmed)?

Interesting idea, that'd be cool to have. There are considerations to make soft-deletes world viewable, along with the jail. However, that's difficult to decide.

Unless a #1 happens, we typically don't take entire threads down.

Looking in retrospect, there were some instances where moderator action could have been better handled (such as the automatic jailing of a few legitimate Automatix forks). We are not evil people who try to be dictators over everything, censoring every word... We are human and at times make mistakes...

No, they just got moved to another thread for some reason... That's very good. I see it now (and will stay away from that one). I'm glad they were moved and not *re*moved.

Can I ask why? 57,999 members. Probably 58,000+ by the time I'm done typing this. That's a big reason.

Forums such as these are a such unique medium for communication. These forums are already established and for them to break off would be a major blow to the community that would affect almost entirely the user support piece of the puzzle. That would be a bad thing.

I don't believe, however, that the forums can maintain as much autonomy as they have now and still be official. I also don't think that they should be simply handed over to the CC. There has to be a way to adjust the slider a bit between the two ends.

and your reply post was productive?.. Dude if you dont have anything positive to say dont do it.. last warning.. ubuntu-geek, in azz's defense I read his statement as true praise. Aysiu is being very open-minded and holding an intelligent conversation (thanks aysiu).

That's very good. I see it now (and will stay away from that one). I'm glad they were moved and not *re*moved.

57,999 members. Probably 58,000+ by the time I'm done typing this. That's a big reason.

Forums such as these are a such unique medium for communication. These forums are already established and for them to break off would be a major blow to the community that would affect almost entirely the user support piece of the puzzle. That would be a bad thing.

I don't believe, however, that the forums can maintain as much autonomy as they have now and still be official. I also don't think that they should be simply handed over to the CC. There has to be a way to adjust the slider a bit between the two ends. We have forums policies they are published for reading, yes sometimes I say those rules to get broke by staff and users alike its the nature of people. In life mistakes happen and rules get broke and we pickup the pieces and move on. The forum policy has been approved by the CC and its our operating policy. Can it be improved? Sure it can.

I don't think adding the word "UNOFFICIAL" to our title page will affect the size of our community significantly.... But that's beside the point.

As far as both sides getting together, a special CC-with-Forum meeting is in the plans. However, our Canonical contacts are very busy people (apparently) and usually do not respond to forum e-mails except once a month or so....

These forums are already established and for them to break off would be a major blow to the community that would affect almost entirely the user support piece of the puzzle. I don't know if I agree that that would be the necessary outcome of the forums going unofficial.

ubuntu-geek, in azz's defense I read his statement as true praise. Aysiu is being very open-minded and holding an intelligent conversation (thanks aysiu). If that was the intention then I retract my statement. However my patience is getting short with the negativity..

I agree that there will be no major impact of the forums going unofficial, if that's what has to happen. Most people don't even know that the forums are official, and they didn't know it back when they were unofficial either.

People want support and a community feeling. Both can be delivered either way, official or unofficial.

This is true but a lot of users will want offical support, and these forums provide it better than any of the CC stuff. I would like to see some resolve between CC and the forums. What the staff here do is amazing and I take my hat off to them. This may not be the right place for this post but I do see the need for offical ubuntu spport (better than the mailing lists) If ubuntu is to continue grow.

Even if the forums do not stay offical, I think that what is needed is a well prepared forum admin response to macgyver2 concerns. He has raised some good points and he should get a well typed out response would be very nice.

I also see no reason why http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/Main_Page can no co-exist witht the offical-wiki as far as I know we do not stop them from using what we publish in the offical wiki, and infact this is the nature of open source, that there will be deltas and as long as we make it easy for the upstream (in the case the offical wiki) to use our work. Then we are not compeating at all. (Im not sure this is the case however, I will look into it)

EDIT: It is correct that there is nothing stoping the offical wiki from using the forum docs.

I hope that this kind of dissuasion and construct ave criticism will not be looked down upon in the future.

This is true but a lot of users will want offical support, and these forums provide it better than any of the CC stuff. I would like to see some resolve between CC and the forums. What the staff here do is amazing and I take my hat off to them. This may not be the right place for this post but I do see the need for offical ubuntu spport (better than the mailing lists) If ubuntu is to continue grow.

Even if the forums do not stay offical, I think that what is needed is a well prepared forum admin response to macgyver2 concerns. He has raised some good points and he should get a well typed out response would be very nice.

I also see no reason why http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/Main_Page can no co-exist witht the offical-wiki as far as I know we do not stop them from using what we publish in the offical wiki

I hope that this kind of dissuasion and construct ave criticism will not be looked down upon in the future. I'll be drafting a reply to his main concerns withing the next 48 hours. There is an item on the agenda for the next CC meeting to work out misunderstandings between the CC and the forums admin team.

However, If the forums are to remain an official forum we need to be backed by a body that fully understands how forums operate and by a body who active the forums and are up to date on issues. And to their credit there has been a higher visit rate from ubuntu staff in the recent weeks.

This is true but a lot of users will want offical support, and these forums provide it better than any of the CC stuff. I would like to see some resolve between CC and the forums. What the staff here do is amazing and I take my hat off to them. This may not be the right place for this post but I do see the need for offical ubuntu spport (better than the mailing lists) If ubuntu is to continue grow.

Even if the forums do not stay offical, I think that what is needed is a well prepared forum admin response to macgyver2 concerns. He has raised some good points and he should get a well typed out response would be very nice.

I hope that this kind of dissuasion and construct ave criticism will not be looked down upon in the future.

I think that overall this has been a very good discussion thread and that macgyver2's concerns were communicated in a clear and non-accusing way. I would like to see a response as well.

I think the forums are 95% fabulous and a little more openness would help close that last remaining gap.

I'll be drafting a reply to his main concerns withing the next 48 hours. There is an item on the agenda for the next CC meeting to work out misunderstandings between the CC and the forums admin team.

However, If the forums are to remain an official forum we need to be backed by a body that fully understands how forums operate and by a body who active the forums and are up to date on issues. And to their credit there has been a higher visit rate from ubuntu staff in the recent weeks. Thanks, u-g.

You posted this while I was typing my previous post.

If the sense of community exists, both freedom and security exist as well. The Community then takes on a life of its own, as people become free enough to share and secure enough to get along. Our community as a whole is an almalgamation of this element. Users, Admins, Moderators, Outsiders all contribute to the base of a commonality. Those expressions are expressed and viewed in a variety of ways. It is this openness of the community, this difference of view that creates a grouping of knowledgeable and open people. The variety in a community speaks of this. Without such variety, the actualization of such things and Identification, realization, and socializtion cannot occur. The community that is driven by one sole effort with no variation creates a one sided and biased view about what surrounds the community.

Our community is about choice, not about centralization, not about making one thing better than another. Our community professes to be for the Human. In that , variety exists, or we limit the community in its ability to grow and prosper.

To limit such things would be to limit the ability of a Community, defying the very definition of what a community is, and stunting its growth.

We share, We are open, We prosper.

I also see no reason why http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/Main_Page can no co-exist witht the offical-wiki as far as I know we do not stop them from using what we publish in the offical wiki, and infact this is the nature of open source, that there will be deltas and as long as we make it easy for the upstream (in the case the offical wiki) to use our work. Then we are not compeating at all. (Im not sure this is the case however, I will look into it)

If you go to the gwos docs you will find this

This page has been accessed 5,723 times. This page was last modified 16:52, 6 December 2005. Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2.

To me this makes me feal that the gwos docs are to the ubuntu offical-wiki what ubuntu is to debian. A delta that makes it easy for the parent to use If they so chose, but do to diferent goals they are separate. This should answer the OP's problems about compeating wikis

NOTE: This is not an offical responce only what I think is going on.

Also props to the forum staff (The real guys in the red lol) for dealing with this so well.

However, If the forums are to remain an official forum we need to be backed by a body that fully understands how forums operate and by a body who active the forums and are up to date on issues. And to their credit there has been a higher visit rate from ubuntu staff in the recent weeks.

Ubuntu-geek, I don't mean to bash you or your staff, but what I read out of that is "we need to be backed by a body that fully understands how *our/my/all* forums work".

For the most part the staff has handled regular misuses of the forum well. Unfortunately there were some predicaments that both the forum staff and regular members were put in that were not everyday situations by any means. This whole fiasco is neither the fault of the staff or users, as both parties could have handled the events much, much better.

But, reading that quote gives me the impression that the staff has their ways and isn't going to give very easily. I could be wrong, but that's an impression I got from it. I've been to forums with moderation extremely different than this (little to none) and it worked like a charm. There have been plenty of bad seeds, and they weren't banned until it was absolutely necessary in order to retain peace with the other members. And posts are rarely deleted.

Just be sure to consider all sides equally, open your minds, and accept criticism (even if it seems like mud-slinging). Thanks for everyone's hard work at making this a great forum, users and staff alike. Despite all of this drama in the past weeks, the real intention of the forums has not been tarnished.

<edited because i'm dumb>

we need to be backed by a body that fully understands how forums operate a

That has been your opinion for a long time. That things are different on forums. That a forum administration cannot be transparent.

Can we discuss that?

I'll be drafting a reply to his main concerns withing the next 48 hours. There is an item on the agenda for the next CC meeting to work out misunderstandings between the CC and the forums admin team. I saw that, though I personally don't think having it as part of a normal CC meeting is the best thing to do... As far as both sides getting together, a special CC-with-Forum meeting is in the plans. However, our Canonical contacts are very busy people (apparently) and usually do not respond to forum e-mails except once a month or so.... Good to know. I knew there had been talk of a separate meeting (I guess to mainly discuss the dispute team proposal) but I thought the idea of a separate meeting had died.

However my patience is getting short with the negativity.. I know I'm not innocent here. I apologize for any of my past negativity.

That has been your opinion for a long time. That things are different on forums. That a forum administration cannot be transparent.

Can we discuss that?

That is for the admins and the CC to discuss, if we/they so choose.

And posts are rarely deleted. Too be fair, if you compare the deletions here with the total number of posts/threads I think the word rarely is also applicable. I just brought it up because in my viewpoint, rarely isn't good enough and I'd like to 'rarely' become 'never'.

That is for the admins and the CC to discuss, if we/they so choose. By limiting the discussion to those small groups you're missing out on quite a valuable resource...namely the huge body of users here. Don't you think some of them may have some input, ideas, and suggestions that the admins or the CC might not have?

Too be fair, if you compare the deletions here with the total number of posts/threads I think the word rarely is also applicable. I just brought it up because in my viewpoint, rarely isn't good enough and I'd like to 'rarely' become 'never'.

I agree, withing the whole timeframe of this site's existance combined with the number of users, this is true. But just look at the past month and it changes into a much different statistic.

Like I said though, all of these issues aren't interfering with the core point of this site, which is very fortunate.

never would constitute anything within the given rules.

What about posts / threads that go outside those rules?

Are they too, exempt from deletion?

raublekick, I think you are misunderstanding what ubuntu-geek says. From reading through the CC logs I get the impression he is making some very valid points here.

The first one is that forums are different from other mediums the CC members might be more familiar with, e.g. mailing lists. They cater to a different crowd (which make forums so important imho, as the enty barriers are far lower than for mailing lists I think) and the different format leads to different kinds of discussions. I think there is nothing wrong with pointing this out, do you?

Further, if I understand him correctly, he makes the point that in order to be able to truely judge what is going on in a community, one has to be involved in this community. I don't think there can be any doubt about this being correct.

So again, I think you absolutely misunderstood him.

If you go to the gwos docs you will find this

This page has been accessed 5,723 times. This page was last modified 16:52, 6 December 2005. Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. To me this makes me feal that the gwos docs are to the ubuntu offical-wiki what ubuntu is to debian. A delta that makes it easy for the parent to use If they so chose, but do to diferent goals they are separate. This should answer the OP's problems about compeating wikis

Hi Earobinson!

I'm afraid that this is not strictly accurate: the GNU Free Documentation Licence is not free :( The licence has been rejected by those boffs on debian-legal - it requires that the material copied is licensed under exactly the same licence (i.e. not release it under any other licence) and accredits the author specifically. That's not something we can do on our wiki: releasing different documents under different licences would be _very_ complicated!

HOWEVER the gwos admins have indicated to me a few times that we can discuss this issue and I feel confident that it will be resolved.

Now back to the subject matter of the thread: I'd like to support (just my opinion) those who say that it is unnecessary to remove or edit posts. I agree (as has been done in this thread) that a good way with dealing with thread forking and general rowdiness is to move threads and separate the issues. Afterall the very nature of forum communication is that people get dragged off-topic quite easily and the subject matter of a thread will tend to move around. In such a case it makes sense to move and separate threads. If this is done however, I think it's important to post to the thread saying what has been moved, giving a link, and why (perhaps the forum software does this automatically?)

I'd add to the voices of those who have said well done to the participants in this thread for keeping it reasoned and rational.

Matt

raublekick, I think you are misunderstanding what ubuntu-geek says. From reading through the CC logs I get the impression he is making some very valid points here.

The first one is that forums are different from other mediums the CC members might be more familiar with, e.g. mailing lists. They cater to a different crowd (which make forums so important imho, as the enty barriers are far lower than for mailing lists I think) and the different format leads to different kinds of discussions. I think there is nothing wrong with pointing this out, do you?

Further, if I understand him correctly, he makes the point that in order to be able to truely judge what is going on in a community, one has to be involved in this community. I don't think there can be any doubt about this being correct.

So again, I think you absolutely misunderstood him.

Actually, I just realized I miswrote my interpretation. I wasn't trying to argue the points you're making.

What I really meant is that the quote can be interpreted as that all forums work the same, which is definitely not true. The fact that forums are a different medium than say, a wiki, is absolutely true. The other matter... I'll leave that for another day:)

By limiting the discussion to those small groups you're missing out on quite a valuable resource...namely the huge body of users here. Don't you think some of them may have some input, ideas, and suggestions that the admins or the CC might not have?

Again, I am being mis-read. I am not suggesting in the slightest that no one else has input/ideas/etc. After numerous threads, discussions, and meetings within the community at hand, we felt it would be a good thing to discuss our thoughts with the CC.

Where do I say that I don't think anyone else has any ideas? Unless we're not allowed to discuss our thoughts with the CC? Or are we not allowed to make any discussion or decision without 18 months of full research and popular opinion, documented in triplicate?

Do you know what Licence the ubunut wikis are under, I can only assume it is the GPL also no (I cant find anything on this)?

But like you I have been told that the gwos admins have told me that they have no problem with there docs being used. As for the moving of threads and linking them its a great idea.

You must however understand that some threads must be deleated to comply with the law. And CC dose indirectly deleat things by editing it out, true it may be arcived but to the advrage user this is the same.

I have never once see a support post being deleated.

You must however understand that some threads must be deleated to comply with the law. And CC dose indirectly deleat things by editing it out, true it may be arcived but to the advrage user this is the same.

I have never once see a support post being deleated.

I have, and so have others, and that's why this whole darned thing got this far in the first place.

I think that this is a *really* good suggestion. Not perfect, as some of the staff may grumble about it being a bit more of a hassle, but I really think it deserves good consideration.

I made that suggestion to a moderator that enjoyed talking in CC. I'm rather surprised that you'd approve of it. I think it'd become quickly obvious who was what moderator (at least among those with strong opinions or unique writing styles). If a moderator were to subsequently moderate a thread that they were involved in then it's just create more drama, I think.

I also enjoyed their post--well said.

Again, I am being mis-read. I am not suggesting in the slightest that no one else has input/ideas/etc. After numerous threads, discussions, and meetings within the community at hand, we felt it would be a good thing to discuss our thoughts with the CC.

Where do I say that I don't think anyone else has any ideas? Unless we're not allowed to discuss our thoughts with the CC? Or are we not allowed to make any discussion or decision without 18 months of full research and popular opinion, documented in triplicate? Yes, then I must have misread. Your reply to azz sounded to me like you were saying "No, *you* [as in regular users] can't discuss it but *we* [admin/CC] can." And then there was nothing more.

I think what azz was getting at was a discussion between the forum staff and the users on the specific topic of operational transparency...is that right azz?

Of course now that ubuntu-geek has said he'll address the concerns voiced by those of us on this thread with concerns, maybe it's best to wait until after that happens. Specifically, on the subject of transparency, I'm hoping there will be a bit more elaboration than the usual statements I've seen that say to me "we can't run the forums with transparency" but really don't say *why.*

I have never seen a SUPPORT thread deleted. I've seen them EDITED and closed. We have very strict guidelines which the UF Staff abide by. The problem is the community doesn't read the CoC nor do they read OUR guidelines. Then when things get out of hand and actions are taken, we get handed all of the bicker and foul mouth comments of why.

I made that suggestion to a moderator that enjoyed talking in CC. I'm rather surprised that you'd approve of it. I think it'd become quickly obvious who was what moderator (at least among those with strong opinions or unique writing styles). If a moderator were to subsequently moderate a thread that they were involved in then it's just create more drama, I think.

I also enjoyed their post--well said. Well, I guess the idea isn't so much to hide the identity of the staff member, but to make it clear when the staff member is posting as a staff member and when the staff member is posting as a forum user. So now that I think further, a disclaimer--such as what earobinson and jdong did earlier in this thread--could also serve the same purpose without the need for two accounts.

To address the appearance of impropriety by subsequently moderating a thread where (s)he had posted as a regular user...maybe a general guideline against this? There are enough moderators that at the very least one non-poster would be available.

Edit: fixed my bad grammar

Do you know what Licence the ubunut wikis are under, I can only assume it is the GPL also no (I cant find anything on this)? None. This is work in progress too: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WikiLicensing

The aim is currently for it to be "public domain", i.e. totally free. But the issue has yet to be finalised.

You must however understand that some threads must be deleated to comply with the law.

Yeah there is definitely a middle ground to be found: illegal and simply abusive activity has no place. Opinions should be allowed (IMO) but if they go off-topic, the relevant discussion can be moved. If those moderating follow the guidelines u-g has referred to in this thread, I don't think there will be a problem. The problem only arises if moderators or staff are seen to remove or moderate threads which they disagree with (I dunno if this happens or not, but probably some moderators are better than others, and no doubt everyone, being human, makes mistakes from time to time). It's a fine line between the two, though, and obviously can be impossible to draw.

And CC dose indirectly deleat things by editing it out, true it may be arcived but to the advrage user this is the same.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean :) The CC is a four person body made up of core Ubuntu developers that takes the decisions at the top level of the Ubuntu community. They don't edit or archive anything.

Matt

To address the appearance of impropriety by subsequently moderating a thread where (s)he had posted as a regular user...maybe a general guideline against this? There are enough moderators that at the very least one non-poster would be available.

And that wouldn't look like impoper to you? For a staff member to post as registered user and then have OTHER staff moderate?

*cringing thinking of the ill-will that would generate.*

I have never seen a SUPPORT thread deleted. I've seen them EDITED and closed. We have very strict guidelines which the UF Staff abide by. The problem is the community doesn't read the CoC nor do they read OUR guidelines. Then when things get out of hand and actions are taken, we get handed all of the bicker and foul mouth comments of why.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and relay my personal experience with this issue. While it's not specifically a support thread, it was a perfectly valid thread:

I go into the Automatix section, see a new thread about Safer Automatix. I think it's a cool idea, comment on it (which no one else had yet, and i have no idea if anyone got a chance to), and then check out the official Automatix thread.

Here I see that Arnieboy is crying foul publicaly about the fork, and is demanding that certain posts be deleted or he'll take down Automatix, which he eventually did. Soon thereafter the fork thread is gone, and Automatix is back up!

The thread in question was concerning some issues that, in my eyes and obviously the thread author, were important issues to address. They weren't attacking anyone, they were just offering a solution. This was before the whole Automatix Liscense/GPL issue, too.

I don't know who deleted the thread, and I don't really care to know because it's irrelavent. The point is that there has been, at least once, a situation where a staff member was given preference over a normal user, and for no good reason.

The problem is the community doesn't read the CoC nor do they read OUR guidelines. Then when things get out of hand and actions are taken, we get handed all of the bicker and foul mouth comments of why. As a non-moderator I have often taken action in these guideline violation instances. I have politely and directly pointed out how the offender's post was violating the CoC with a link to the page as well as a quote. That doesn't require editing or deleting anything...and usually results in an apology and modified behavior.

EDIT: I'm not referring to the illegal sorts of things referred to in other posts...I am in agreement with the removal of spam, porn, links to illegal behaviour, etc. posts.

I go into the Automatix section, see a new thread about Safer Automatix. 3rd party forum areas are technically "leased" to the individuals that run the projects.

They are commanded by their project leaders - they have authority over their own space to do as they see fit.

caveat: within REASON.

Looking in retrospect, there were some instances where moderator action could have been better handled (such as the automatic jailing of a few legitimate Automatix forks). We are not evil people who try to be dictators over everything, censoring every word... We are human and at times make mistakes... With these numerous mistakes made the forum staff has lost my trust. It makes me wonder how often these "mistakes" happen. When the threads are kept hidden, normal users can never know. The habit of operating in secrecy and being reluctant to allow public critiscm will not help in learning from the mistakes. The lack of transparency as a system is flawed whether the individuals are "evil" or not.

I cannot see a problem with having a read-only public jail forum. I don't think there has ever been such nasty threads that they would need to be completely hidden. Transparency in this issue would restore my trust in the staff and that the staff has guidelines and they follow them.

However my patience is getting short with the negativity.. It seems to me that at least during the last few all other feedback except "Thanks." has been considered a personal insult by arnieboy and the staff. I believe the terms "slander" and "mud-slinging" have been used. Please, try to view user feedback a bit more tolerantly. I'd characterize most of the feedback in this thread and its locked predecessors as constructive.

However, If the forums are to remain an official forum we need to be backed by a body that fully understands how forums operate and by a body who active the forums and are up to date on issues. I think here you are over-emphasizing the special nature of the forums, compared to say the mailing list, and also expressing that there would be only one way to moderate and you know that way while we don't. I think most of us have hung out at various forums and we know that moderating can be done many ways. Transparency does not rule out the ability to moderate towards fluent discussion. The aim here has never been to have unmoderated forums.

Well, I guess the idea isn't so much to hide the identity of the staff member, but to make it clear when the staff member is posting as a staff member and when the staff member is posting as a forum user. So now that I think further, a disclaimer--such as what earobinson and jdong did earlier in this thread--could also serve the same purpose without the need for two accounts.

Another excellent point, macgyver2. Kassetra and I have just been talking about this, too, and parts of our solutions to other ongoing internal improvements include staff members having a special "moderator action" or "moderator hat" checkbox that can be used to indicate when they are speaking as authority on behalf of the team and when they are speaking just as a forum user voicing their own opinion.

That has been a concern amongst us privately --members of our staff are very important to the UbuntuForums/Ubuntu community. They don't just do moderating... and we hate for their moderator position to preclude them from contributing otherwise to discussions.

Also, I'd like to bring up the whole cloud surround the 3rd party project areas. Currently, the way we run it is that we are basically providing "hosting services" (if you will) for 3rd party project leaders. When the leader asks a staff member to perform certain moderation actions, we merely do so on behalf of such people. We believe that each 3rd party subsection can be treated as a separate forum, just hosted at the same place.

CC might not have?

That's an odd comment. The CC meetings are open and very much official, given that Sabdfl sits in on them.

And that wouldn't look like impoper to you? For a staff member to post as registered user and then have OTHER staff moderate? It would look far less improper than if the person posting as a user then turned around and moderated her- or himself.

Of course, as I mentioned in some previous post, reviving the idea of a properly constructed (<--bad choice of words...couldn't think of the right ones) independent dispute team--even if only for handling disputes involving staff--would be much better.

That doesn't require editing or deleting anything...and usually results in an apology and modified behavior..

You're right, that's the case most of the time. We don't like to be dictators and whenever we have an issue at hand, the first course of action would be a PM to the offending user explaining the situation and politely asking for them to take appropriate corrective action to their own posts. Most times, that works great -- I've _personally_ had nothing but positive experiences from doing so.

HOWEVER, in a forum of 58,000 members once in a while such efforts result in the user blowing up in your face, and when they adamantly refuse to correct the issue we have to take action ourselves.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean :) The CC is a four person body made up of core Ubuntu developers that takes the decisions at the top level of the Ubuntu community. They don't edit or archive anything. I am to understand that the CC do contrubute to the wikis and therefor edit them. I am also to understand that they setup or had some one set up the wikis Is all I was pointing out.

3rd party forum areas are technically "leased" to the individuals that run the projects.

They are commanded by their project leaders - they have authority over their own space to do as they see fit.

caveat: within REASON.

i was under the assumption that Arnieboy was the leader of the Automatix forum. so why wouldn't he just delete the stuff he didn't like himself?

or are you saying that the leader can call on the mods to delete what they want deleted?

i'm honestly not sure what you meant, but either way it seems like a bad way to run things.

Also, as far as the transparency of staff mentioned:

Maybe I've just been too caught up in the other stuff I do and missed this (and I apologize in advance if this is repetitive)

but can I get clarification on *specifically* what would constitute transparency of staff?

Also, I'd like to bring up the whole cloud surround the 3rd party project areas. Currently, the way we run it is that we are basically providing "hosting services" (if you will) for 3rd party project leaders. When the leader asks a staff member to perform certain moderation actions, we merely do so on behalf of such people. We believe that each 3rd party subsection can be treated as a separate forum, just hosted at the same place. My uneasiness meter is rising a bit.

If the 3rd party subsections are to be considered/treated as separate forums I'm hmm...uh...warily okay with that. I would suggest that this be noted very clearly and prominently so that the actions that occurred in the automatix area don't reflect on the ubuntu forums as a whole -and/or- (my preference) have those moderating the areas understand clearly that they must follow the same rules as moderators in other areas.

You're right, that's the case most of the time. We don't like to be dictators and whenever we have an issue at hand, the first course of action would be a PM to the offending user explaining the situation and politely asking for them to take appropriate corrective action to their own posts. Most times, that works great -- I've _personally_ had nothing but positive experiences from doing so.

HOWEVER, in a forum of 58,000 members once in a while such efforts result in the user blowing up in your face, and when they adamantly refuse to correct the issue we have to take action ourselves.That's been my experience as well. In those instances where action really needs to be taken it is generally obvious. Unless it is one of those grossly illegal posts (spam, porn, warez, etc) I would prefer to see the thread locked after a final post by an admin explaining why and then have the thread moved to the backyard so it can still serve as evidence to support the staff's actions. <still posting with the intent of a calm, friendly tone>

My uneasiness meter is rising a bit.

If the 3rd party subsections are to be considered/treated as separate forums I'm hmm...uh...warily okay with that. I would suggest that this be noted very clearly and prominently so that the actions that occurred in the automatix area don't reflect on the ubuntu forums as a whole -and/or- (my preference) have those moderating the areas understand clearly that they must follow the same rules as moderators in other areas.

Ok, another good point; we'll draft up a disclaimer to stick to the 3rd party area.

Within reason, we'd like for 3rd party project leaders to have control over their areas -- we feel that is more correct. Again, the disclaimer is needed in this case.

Just an example of the "within reason" case, (and to start the spirit of openness), with respect to the Automatix stuff, the subject of ending the Automatix subsection was discussed when the restrictive Automatix license first came up (not in the spirit of Ubuntu/OSS), and when Arnieboy fiercely shot down even derivatives of the GPL'd versions.

but can I get clarification on *specifically* what would constitute transparency of staff? I believe it's:

1. Not deleting any posts, but moving them to either the Backyard or the Jail

and

1. Allowing regular forum members read-only access to the Jail

a lot of users will want offical support, and these forums provide it better than any of the CC stuff. I would like to see some resolve between CC and the forums. What the staff here do is amazing and I take my hat off to them. This may not be the right place for this post but I do see the need for offical ubuntu spport (better than the mailing lists) If ubuntu is to continue grow. It's going to be community support either way, official or unofficial. The developers don't really frequent the forums, which is their choice that I respect.

but can I get clarification on *specifically* what would constitute transparency of staff? Transparency would be visibility of actions. Currently we don't know what threads have been deleted, why, by who and whether some guidelines have been followed.

Guidelines rule no. 1

Respect the Forum Staff. We provide a service in our free time to keep the forum running efficiently. We will occasionally ask for input, but in some cases we will not, please respect our decisions. Also, we do edit for content, if you have an issue with our moderation, please contact the staff directly.

is against transparency as it aims to keep all criticism non-public. Making the jail and the staff forums public read-only would be transparent.

That's an odd comment. The CC meetings are open and very much official, given that Sabdfl sits in on them. Yeah, I misread kassetra's post. I refer you to my subsequent post (#89).

Also, I'd like to point out that the original topic of this thread didn't mention Automatix specifically. *Reason: this is so going to go to hell asap.* Not if everyone works to prevent that. :) Also, as far as the transparency of staff mentioned:

Maybe I've just been too caught up in the other stuff I do and missed this (and I apologize in advance if this is repetitive)

but can I get clarification on specifically what would constitute transparency of staff? No, I don't think the specifics were ever mentioned.

Transparency of staff... From what I have heard, the staff has their own section of the forums that the public cannot see where you discuss...I don't know. I'm guessing things like questionable posts and even more importantly *why* they are questionable, beyond the "violated guidelines" explanation usually given to the public. I think stuff like that would be good to see. It would strengthen the public's trust in the fact that there are valid reasons beyond the vague explanations. I dunno, I suppose I can be a person who's very slow to trust oftentimes.

Another example would be when the teams are discussing projects like the Doc. I had some misconceptions about it, which were clarified in this thread. Why couldn't the staff discussion regarding the Doc have been open and visible to everyone? The discussion probably covered what was clarified here today which would have saved some misunderstanding. It would have been better than And maybe someone not on the team would have had a valuable idea to throw out to the team.

And of course the transparency issue includes the Jail. I feel that needs to be open because I have seen some deleted posts that I thought didn't violate guidelines. Once the post is removed from public view however, *you* really lose your ability to justify why it was moved and if there is doubt in our mind *we* then lose the ability to point to the post and cite specific reasons (in a calm, polite way) why we might not feel the post violated any guidelines and why we feel there may have been a mistake. I should note I've seen this specific argument before...it's not only my own.

From what I have heard, the staff has their own section of the forums that the public cannot see where you discuss...I don't know. I'm guessing things like questionable posts and even more importantly *why* they are questionable, beyond the "violated guidelines" explanation usually given to the public. I think stuff like that would be good to see. It would strengthen the public's trust in the fact that there are valid reasons beyond the vague explanations. I can agree with making the staff's *actions* transparent (making the Jail read-only to everybody), but making the staff forum open to everyone defeats the point of having a staff forum. If you have the *actions* transparent, you can always ask staff about the *reasons* for those actions after the fact and after the staff has had a chance by itself to figure out what the best course of action is.

When I was in ed school, the big talk was about "the democratic classroom," where the students get to decide the curriculum. It all sounded great at first, but it's very difficult to implement without things soon devolving to chaos. Teachers, supervisors, and, yes, forum moderators need their own space to figure out what the hell's going on before asking for outside input.

As long as the *actions* are transparent, it doesn't matter if there's a secret place to meet.

Just an example of the "within reason" case, (and to start the spirit of openness), with respect to the Automatix stuff, the subject of ending the Automatix subsection was discussed when the restrictive Automatix license first came up (not in the spirit of Ubuntu/OSS), and when Arnieboy fiercely shot down even derivatives of the GPL'd versions. Another instance of where I misunderstood things because of a lack of information with which I could refine the picture I was seeing. It appeared to me that the forum staff was just protecting Arnieboy without regard to any complaint that even *might* have been valid. When a whole string of posts disappears it becomes pretty easy for us on the outside to get the wrong picture...because we don't have the ability to see the *whole* picture.

I can agree with making the staff's *actions* transparent (making the Jail read-only to everybody), but making the staff forum open to everyone defeats the point of having a staff forum. If you have the *actions* transparent, you can always ask staff about the *reasons* for those actions after the fact and after the staff has had a chance by itself to figure out what the best course of action is. I see your point (not saying I'm completely sold on it though). Your case would require the staff to be consistent in providing a reasonable answer. Here I use the word 'reasonable' to mean something more than a 'because we say so'-type answer. Of course it would also require the users to restrain from continously hounding the staff even after a 'reasonable' answer was given, though at the same time the staff should be open to the occasional further discussion of their ruling... I'm just musing here.

Hmm, I shall attempt to address some of the transparency points you guys brought up. Thanks for the considerate and patient replies.

(1) Transparency of Jail / Deletions I believe this is reasonable to a degree.

The Jail was originally designed as a place to collect spammer or other kinds of abusive activity so that if we ever need to file an abuse claim with another ISP, we have a searchable index of evidence. Since then, it's taken on a more and more broad role, and at times has even been compared to a terrorist watchlist by some who disapprove.

So apart from the plain illegal and spam that the forum gets, I believe it's reasonable for the jail to remain open, but read only for the remaining threads so that they may be looked at.

Same applies to deletions. It's reasonable for deletions to be viewable, unless it's illegal stuff again.

Currently, that means on the todo list would be a permissions hack in the forum code that would allow granting multiple levels of delete view privs (one for illegal posts, another for other sorts of deletions). Deletions are pretty rare and the staff guidelines ask for refrainment from deletions.

In either case, concerned members are welcome to contact the staff about obtaining the contents of deleted or jailed posts in the meantime.

(2) Moderator Action Accountability I believe this is a reasonable request, too. All that's waiting is the infrastructure.

We are already pursuing ways of generating logs or reports of moderator actions (which sort of goes together with the "moderator action" checkbox idea). Once we get such a system working (and just make sure FIRST that there's no huge issues), sharing this with the public is certainly a reasonable request.

(3) Staff Forum

It's true -- there is a staff lounge. It roughly serves as a mini community chat for the staff. It also doubles as a communications area for staff members (i.e. taking leave due to personal crises, user requesting 3rd party hosting) like debian-private, and also since not all of us can be reachable via the same channels (AIM, IRC, e-mail, whatever) it's helpful to have this common area.

There is no secret backstabbing or conspiracy plans in there. Currently in discussion are holiday cards for each other, welcoming new staff member(s), and user name change requests.

It's fairly common practice amongst forums to have staff lounges.

(4) Dispute Settlement

The mentioned ultra-tight dispute management system was a (perhaps overly) extreme measure to keep forum sanity at one point where we had way too many complaints about this and that for us to handle.

An open dispute management system would be nice, sort of like CC meetings only using forum threads. Posts will have to be trimmed/moderated to some degree to maintain sanity of course (i.e. steering the conversation) -- that's even done during CC meetings (CC members telling people to move on or "drop it") and is necessary to maintain a degree of control during the dispute resolution process.

As long as the *actions* are transparent, it doesn't matter if there's a secret place to meet.I would agree with this. It seems entirely appropriate for staff to be able to discuss things behind closed doors, toss around ideas, voice internal concerns, etc. When a decision is reached it is appreciated when the rationale is given along with a clear view of the actions taken.

EDIT: jdong's post above pretty much supercedes any need for mine to be here, but I'll leave it anyway. :)

I would agree with this. It seems entirely appropriate for staff to be able to discuss things behind closed doors, toss around ideas, voice internal concerns, etc. When a decision is reached it is appreciated when the rationale is given along with a clear view of the actions taken.

EDIT: jdong's post above pretty much supercedes any need for mine to be here, but I'll leave it anyway. :) Aysiu's, jdong's, and your posts all look like a good compromise.

Thanks for the considerate and patient replies. Thanks for being so open to discussing these things.

QUOTE=jdong Dispute Settlement

The mentioned ultra-tight dispute management system was a (perhaps overly) extreme measure to keep forum sanity at one point where we had way too many complaints about this and that for us to handle.

An open dispute management system would be nice, sort of like CC meetings only using forum threads. Posts will have to be trimmed/moderated to some degree to maintain sanity of course (i.e. steering the conversation) -- that's even done during CC meetings (CC members telling people to move on or "drop it") and is necessary to maintain a degree of control during the dispute resolution process. There is #ubuntuforums. What about using that channel instead of forum threads?

Because they ban people at will *cough cough*

There is #ubuntuforums. What about using that channel instead of forum threads? This is the same issue I have with CC meetings... convenience and time....

Many of us have busy schedules.... Though I can virtually guarantee like 10 minute e-mail responses while I'm awake, it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE for me to set aside a large block of time in the same way.

Because they ban people at will *cough cough*

Now now Kyral... perhaps you should be truthful... Tell the good people why the ops banned you...

Because they ban people at will *cough cough*

Kyral, please... We don't click the ban button for fun. There are LONG DISCUSSIONS before anything of that degree ever happens.

However, there is a tolerance threshold of repeat offense, which is an issue some staff members have with complete openness of the jail and such.

Some people would just dig up old flames and start them again and again and again and again.... Faced with such a situation, the administration has no other action than banning...

We don't like to ban. We really don't. Maybe if we can together come up with more appropriate consequences, that'd be even better, but when repeated requests to stop don't work and we literally have to assign staff members to cleaning up after certain individuals, we are short of options.

This is the same issue I have with CC meetings... convenience and time....

Many of us have busy schedules.... Though I can virtually guarantee like 10 minute e-mail responses while I'm awake, it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE for me to set aside a large block of time in the same way. Using #ubuntuforums was just an idea. I don't even know how well that would work, actually. I just threw it out.

And we appreciate all the time you've taken to spend on this thread.

Because I disagreed. Granted I detonated in grand fashion and I realize this. But that was more than 24 hours ago. And I still find it amusing you need 4 bans to keep me out ;D

However, there is a tolerance threshold of repeat offense, which is an issue some staff members have with complete openness of the jail and such.

Some people would just dig up old flames and start them again and again and again and again.... Faced with such a situation, the administration has no other action than banning... At least in this thread, no one's proposed the complete opening up of the Jail. It should be read-only. No one will be able to start the old flames again.

Using #ubuntuforums was just an idea. I don't even know how well that would work, actually. I just threw it out.

And we appreciate all the time you've taken to spend on this thread.

No problem; I'm still calm and enjoying this discussion :)

The other thing; CC meetings are usually 2 hours long, and some staff members are afraid that if every moderator action was up for review, 50% or more of them would land at the CC (because moderating is basically done when things get controversial anyway) and we'd be dragged in to 2 hour meetings day after day after day, etc etc etc.

If there'd be a more sane way of settling disputes at the forums and the "appeal process" (in a way), I think virtually the whole staff would agree to much more openness.

At least in this thread, no one's proposed the complete opening up of the Jail. It should be read-only. No one will be able to start the old flames again.

I find a button near the top right labeled "New Topic".... Nothing stops especially angry people from reaching for it.

Even from recent posts to this thread, you can see how the old events and the taunting starts up again, and the distraction it creates even here... the persistence of some and the lack of cooperation even though we try and try to be forgiving.

At times the staff does feel like it's being taken advantage of... It's a natural sense of paranoia... Please try to bear with it :)

At times the staff does feel like it's being taken advantage of... It's a natural sense of paranoia... Please try to bear with it :)Forums cleansing, that's what's happening. Some good things do come out of bad things after all ;).

I find a button near the top right labeled "New Topic".... Nothing stops especially angry people from reaching for it. Somehow I think angry people will reach for it no matter what.

Somehow I think angry people will reach for it no matter what.

Unless we use actions such as banning. Then we begin to get an upper hand at the game. No, we don't have a 100% failproof method (not even close), but it gives us some level of control.

Yes, then I must have misread. Your reply to azz sounded to me like you were saying "No, *you* [as in regular users] can't discuss it but *we* [admin/CC] can." And then there was nothing more.

The meeting will be an open one, so this is irrelevant. Anyway the point here is to discuss it here, and not to discuss what will be discussed at the meeting.

I really would like this talked about.

I think what azz was getting at was a discussion between the forum staff and the users on the specific topic of operational transparency...is that right azz? ... I'm hoping there will be a bit more elaboration than the usual statements I've seen that say to me "we can't run the forums with transparency" but really don't say *why.*

That has been UbuntuGeeks principle argument in not respecting the CCs decisions/recommendations/suggestions. I think these forums are different than the Gentoo forums in that they would respond very well to a more moderate form of moderation. I would like it for more than just the three admins and a handful of other people to make that call.

I think the CC is uniquely qualified to voice an opinion on the matter.

I do not think it is true that we are doomed to fail by being less draconian. This thread is a case in point. Would we be here if the arnieboy issue was treated by moving things to the backyard instead of deleting?

I find a button near the top right labeled "New Topic".... Nothing stops especially angry people from reaching for it.

Even from recent posts to this thread, you can see how the old events and the taunting starts up again, and the distraction it creates even here... the persistence of some and the lack of cooperation even though we try and try to be forgiving.

At times the staff does feel like it's being taken advantage of... It's a natural sense of paranoia... Please try to bear with it :) JDong this happened 24 hours ago. You know that a ban of excess of 24 hours is excessive in any situation. Did I act out of line by detonating? Yes. Do I still hold my stance? Yes. But yanno what? I'll keep helping people. Because thats what I became a Member to do. And thats what these Forums are for!

JDong this happened 24 hours ago. You know that a ban of excess of 24 hours is excessive in any situation. Did I act out of line by detonating? Yes. Do I still hold my stance? Yes. But yanno what? I'll keep helping people. Because thats what I became a Member to do. And thats what these Forums are for! If you're asking for my personal opinion, I do not believe a 24 hour ban is overly excessive in that situation, and it was not meant to be taken offensively/personally... 24 hours is a very reasonable cooling off period, and even at times that is not enough for me to calm down.

Anyway, the disclaimer goes out again with all my posts here... I do not have the full support of the staff on what I have been saying; they are my opinions.

That has been UbuntuGeeks principle argument in not respecting the CCs decisions/recommendations/suggestions. I think these forums are different than the Gentoo forums in that they would respond very well to a more moderate form of moderation. I would like it for more than just the three admins and a handful of other people to make that call.

I think the CC is uniquely qualified to voice an opinion on the matter.

I do not think it is true that we are doomed to fail by being less draconian. This thread is a case in point. Would we be here if the arnieboy issue was treated by moving things to the backyard instead of deleting?

The CC's recommendations not directive.

I would like it for more than just the three admins and a handful of other people to make that call.

The CC is only four people, so I don't understand the numerical argument. You push them as the arbiter because you believe that they'll agree with you.

I think these forums are different than the Gentoo forums in that they would respond very well to a more moderate form of moderation.

Is it the chicken or the egg? Perhaps the guidelines and moderation are what retain the sort of person that isn't a problem.

The CC is four people, right? I don't understand the numerical argument. I lie, impaled by your rapier-like argument. Touché.

My view is that these four people are very powerful players in the free-libre software ecosystem. They are seasoned professionals with years of relevant experience dealing with the debian culture. The argument that they should be ignored because they do not frequent these forums is not very compelling when you consider what they have under their belts.

It is a miracle that debian functions considering the sheer number of people involved who are as passionate and argumentative as they come. The four members of the CC are part of that. Free-libre software is social software. It is all about the community. And the ubuntu community has strong leadership. The CC is respected.

The CC is in place because they have to know-how to make it work.

At the very least, their opinion should be considered alongside all the other's - and that includes the 58000 registered forum users.

You push them as the arbiter because you believe that they'll agree with you.

Don't accuse me of doing this for personal gain or something. There is no golden ring at the end of the tunnel for me. I am doing this because I beleive something is wrong, not because I have something to gain.

As for your point, actually, I agree with them. I think it is their show and not only the forum's. I think they have set a standard that the forums need to meet.

Is it the chicken or the egg? Perhaps the guidelines and moderation are what retain the sort of person that isn't a problem.

Been there, done that. I do not think so. What ratio of complaints do you get regarding non-moderator-involved issues versus moderator-involve-issues (Moderator complaints)

A few months ago, for every complaint a user had about another user, there were five or so others about a moderator who acted harshly. Mind you, I did not read every post, but I had quite a high post count at the time, too.

#edit - I realise that complain can mean a lot of thing. I mean one user who seriously thinks someone is being offended, not "Reportedpost - wrong forum"

I almost want to know what issues have been resolved and what has not. Jdong (who has imo beed doing a great job in at not loseing his cool and not taking things personal) had a post a couple of posts back. Hmm, I shall attempt to address some of the transparency points you guys brought up. Thanks for the considerate and patient replies.

(1) Transparency of Jail / Deletions I believe this is reasonable to a degree.

The Jail was originally designed as a place to collect spammer or other kinds of abusive activity so that if we ever need to file an abuse claim with another ISP, we have a searchable index of evidence. Since then, it's taken on a more and more broad role, and at times has even been compared to a terrorist watchlist by some who disapprove.

So apart from the plain illegal and spam that the forum gets, I believe it's reasonable for the jail to remain open, but read only for the remaining threads so that they may be looked at.

Same applies to deletions. It's reasonable for deletions to be viewable, unless it's illegal stuff again.

Currently, that means on the todo list would be a permissions hack in the forum code that would allow granting multiple levels of delete view privs (one for illegal posts, another for other sorts of deletions). Deletions are pretty rare and the staff guidelines ask for refrainment from deletions.

In either case, concerned members are welcome to contact the staff about obtaining the contents of deleted or jailed posts in the meantime.

(2) Moderator Action Accountability I believe this is a reasonable request, too. All that's waiting is the infrastructure.

We are already pursuing ways of generating logs or reports of moderator actions (which sort of goes together with the "moderator action" checkbox idea). Once we get such a system working (and just make sure FIRST that there's no huge issues), sharing this with the public is certainly a reasonable request.

(3) Staff Forum

It's true -- there is a staff lounge. It roughly serves as a mini community chat for the staff. It also doubles as a communications area for staff members (i.e. taking leave due to personal crises, user requesting 3rd party hosting) like debian-private, and also since not all of us can be reachable via the same channels (AIM, IRC, e-mail, whatever) it's helpful to have this common area.

There is no secret backstabbing or conspiracy plans in there. Currently in discussion are holiday cards for each other, welcoming new staff member(s), and user name change requests.

It's fairly common practice amongst forums to have staff lounges.

(4) Dispute Settlement

The mentioned ultra-tight dispute management system was a (perhaps overly) extreme measure to keep forum sanity at one point where we had way too many complaints about this and that for us to handle.

An open dispute management system would be nice, sort of like CC meetings only using forum threads. Posts will have to be trimmed/moderated to some degree to maintain sanity of course (i.e. steering the conversation) -- that's even done during CC meetings (CC members telling people to move on or "drop it") and is necessary to maintain a degree of control during the dispute resolution process. And I think this answers a lot of peoples problems. Now I know its not set in stone and we still need to program it but this seems fair. There is #ubuntuforums. What about using that channel instead of forum threads? Maybe miss understand this macgyver2 what is the diff if the staff use email or the forums or irc to talk in quite its all the same no? They have every right to say stuff quietly because things they say are more likley to be quoted and taken as fact. The staff may want to keep a history of there convos and this is a better place to do it than irc. At the end of the day they need a place to talk about things they arent sure they wanted to be quoted on. Mark did this with the launch of ubuntu, because he is such a icon in SA he had to keep it quite because everything he says gets quoted and taken as fact. When he decided that yes ubuntu was something he wanted to do he said it and went public and transparnet about it. The staff should have this right too no?

WOW I SOUND LIKE AN ASS KISSER BUT ITS GOOD TO POINT OUT THE GOOD AS WELL AS THE BAD

AZZ What is the sum of the experience of the staff off Ubuntu Forums ?

So the sum of the staff + the CC would be even better no? (IMHO this is the same as the my dad could kick your dads but argument. everyone has good input) At the end of the day ubuntugeek foots the bill no? And it comes down to him, It would be nice to see the forums stay offical and transparnet But we will have to wait and see.

I think the issues here need to be redefined, since I have been following this as close as i can and im unsure of what people think is solved or not. Also a couple of pages back we where promised a offical responce in 48 hours. Maybe we should wait for that. Then decided what issues have been solved and what have not.

3rd party forum areas are technically "leased" to the individuals that run the projects.

They are commanded by their project leaders - they have authority over their own space to do as they see fit.

caveat: within REASON.

If this is true why do I still have zero power over the alacarte forum?

If this is true why do I still have zero power over the alacarte forum?

My understanding is that you run and guide the discussion in that part of the forum and of course the project. If you want something done you just have to ask a mod and it will be done.

What more do you want?

My understanding is that you run and guide the discussion in that part of the forum and of course the project. If you want something done you just have to ask a mod and it will be done.

What more do you want?

Well, from the day the forum was created it was understood I'd be made a moderator of the forum. I've resubmitted my request for this many times.

Well, from the day the forum was created it was understood I'd be made a moderator of the forum. I've resubmitted my request for this many times. It's an entirely different topic though. Something that should be dealt with swiftly if you'd contact a staff member (with power over this) directly.

size=1[/size]

3rd party forum areas are technically "leased" to the individuals that run the projects.

They are commanded by their project leaders - they have authority over their own space to do as they see fit.

caveat: within REASON.

Regardless, of whether this is what happens, I would suggest that it is not a good idea.

From a users point of view, we don't know this and assume that they are run in the same way as the rest of the forums. Also, a little distance is a good idea to control discussion as a repression of negative comments about a project that aren't addressed by the forum means that either;

a) the user doesn't get the whole picture or thinks that there is some air-brushing going on; or

b) looses faith in the accuracy of advice offered.

Also, if anything goes wrong it isn't the project leader that is going to get it but ubuntugeek. No third party would care about internal finessing.

Regardless, of whether this is what happens, I would suggest that it is not a good idea.

From a users point of view, we don't know this and assume that they are run in the same way as the rest of the forums. Also, a little distance is a good idea to control discussion as a repression of negative comments about a project that aren't addressed by the forum means that either;

a) the user doesn't get the whole picture or thinks that there is some air-brushing going on; or

b) looses faith in the accuracy of advice offered.

Also, if anything goes wrong it isn't the project leader that is going to get it but ubuntugeek. No one would care about anything else.

Lerrup

You make some valid points here

Regardless, of whether this is what happens, I would suggest that it is not a good idea.

From a users point of view, we don't know this and assume that they are run in the same way as the rest of the forums. Also, a little distance is a good idea to control discussion as a repression of negative comments about a project that aren't addressed by the forum means that either;

a) the user doesn't get the whole picture or thinks that there is some air-brushing going on; or

b) looses faith in the accuracy of advice offered.

Also, if anything goes wrong it isn't the project leader that is going to get it but ubuntugeek. No third party would care about internal finessing. Without this, however, these projects would be scattered across several other forums, which wouldn't contribute to; [*] The accessibility of Linux at all

• Result in decentralisation of the Ubuntu-aimed projects, something which I'd - personally - dislike very much to see happen.

It'd be a better solution to better display their being third party projects. With, for example, a warning page. (Forum index -> Warning page "This section is ran by 3rd party and non-official people only") -> Project forum in question) And I know from past experience on a different vBulletin forum that this kind of warning page is possible, so it shouldn't be too hard to implement.

You say you're joking, but I think there's some truth to this, Poofy. Sometimes people have the mistaken assumption that staff here are paid and "official" employees of Canonical.

They'd be less likely to think so if we were unofficial forums.

Much official Ubuntu work is being done by unpaid volunteers. But that's one thing.

To be constructive, I see two ways ahead for the forums:

1) Remain official - all moderators must sign and abide with the Ubuntu code of conduct, and moderation should be light-handed and only directed against obvious trolls and spammers. 2) Go unofficial - it should be made clear from the layout, that these forums are not an official part of Ubuntu.

Personally, I'd prefer 1), but 2) would be another obvious solution. That would make the mailing lists and IRC channels the only "real" Ubuntu communication channels, and that would avoid confusion.

ex`]Without this, however, these projects would be scattered across several other forums, which wouldn't contribute to said:

• The accessibility of Linux at all

• Result in decentralisation of the Ubuntu-aimed projects, something which I'd - personally - dislike very much to see happen.

It'd be a better solution to better display their being third party projects. With, for example, a warning page. (Forum index -> Warning page "This section is ran by 3rd party and non-official people only") -> Project forum in question) And I know from past experience on a different vBulletin forum that this kind of warning page is possible, so it shouldn't be too hard to implement. Another alternative is that the links to the third party sub-forums remain as is, but the forums themselves are hosted elsewhere, which provides a much clearer distinction between the projects' forums and the official forum (if it remains official); allows the project leaders to have full control; and still keeps everything reasonably centralised and accessible.

Couldn't we get a way to distinguish between the project thread and the discussion/support threads around it?

Anyone who puts stuff out there to be used needs to be thick skinned enough to have get all sorts of feedback. But, there is no need to expect them to be saints and have them moderate it as well.

We could then still have the project stuff concentrated here which is definitely a good thing.

Oh, and I agree with what Wild says in the how-to avoid a flame war thread.

Maybe miss understand this macgyver2 what is the diff if the staff use email or the forums or irc to talk in quite its all the same no? They have every right to say stuff quietly because things they say are more likley to be quoted and taken as fact. The staff may want to keep a history of there convos and this is a better place to do it than irc. I was referring to the use of irc in response to jdong's thoughts on dispute resolution, not as a place for staff discussion. Jdong mentioned having CC-like dispute meetings in threads on the forums and I said, well why not on the irc channel (as that is what popped in my head when I thought of CC-like meetings). It was just a quick idea that popped in my head. It doesn't look like it would be the best thing anyway.

At the end of the day ubuntugeek foots the bill no?

Canonical has offered to pay for everything. Only a small part was accepted. http://people.ubuntu.com/~fabbione/irclogs/archived/2005-09/ubuntu-meeting-2005-09-27.html 11:58

and Somehow, the logs of Nov 2 are not on the log site:

Nov 02 20:59:09 elmo zenwhen: canonical offered to contribute more, that hasn't been taken up... http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3325&d=1130984866 http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3326&d=1130984873

Canonical has offered to pay for everything. Only a small part was accepted.

I didn't know that.

These forums are designated as the "Official Ubuntu Forums". Yet from what I see, the administration of these forums wants to be independent and autonomous, which is perfectly fine since ubuntu-geek foots so much of the bill. They are his forums to do with as he pleases. But if these forums are to be autonomous, then it should be made clear to the users that they are not official. I would much prefer they remain official...but not if the "Official" label is an empty one. On my way to work this morning I was thinking about what exactly being "official" offers. Some thoughts I have.

If we are truly official then we need to be known as that from the ubuntu side.

#1: http://www.ubuntulinux.org/community/forums - Does not label us as official.

#2: When starting up Firefox in ubuntu the main page the user first gets does not even mention the forums the last time I checked it does however mention the Wiki, IRC and Mailing Lists. If we are an official method of support we should be listed there as well.

#3: We need to have policy in place on the ubuntu side to protect the forums it has been stated before the current policy and CoC doesnt do a very good job of protecting or upholding the forum policy.

#4: As I have said for over a year now and have requested multiple times more involvement from some of the CC members or staff at Ubuntu would be nice on this forum it would be nice to see a balance. By participating in the discussions here the understanding of how the forums differ from IRC and Mailing Lists would be prominent.

I am concerned that the forum dispute resolution proposal has apparently stalled. The recent Automatix-related threads should show why an *independent* dispute resolution team needs to be in place as soon as possible, yet it has been over a month since any related pages that I could find on the wiki have even been updated. I urge the forum administration to do whatever they are able to speed the review and implementation process along. I also ask that the forum userbase be kept up-to-date on the proposal. After all this is, as you say, our forum (figuratively speaking).

Agreed, something to the nature of a forum resolution team could have come to the aid of that conflict. I do think in the future the staff members of the forums need to remain neutral as stated in our working policy and myself too need to re-address that and forum users need to read the forum policy.

However, getting back to the FRT there seems to not be a common ground of agreement on what myself thinks the forum resolution team should be and what the CC thinks it should be. Previous meetings have ended with nothing resolved and I have asked for help from Ubuntu to create a policy but none has been giving thus far. The project is stalled yes and hopefully can be picked up again.

Also, there's the Ubuntu Document Storage Facility. I've read this thread through several times, attempting to disregard the condescending messages posted by a forum staff member at a regular user, and the conclusion I come to is that UDSF is not a good idea. Now--and this part is important--I am not in any way trying to limit choices or tell people they can't start another wiki. I see no problem with a wiki that competes with the Official Ubuntu Wiki. The problem I see is with a wiki that competes with the Official Ubuntu Wiki *when the competing wiki is started and maintained by an official team that claims to be an official arm of the same body that the official wiki is.* That distinction is key.

I need to make a comment on this as it was done on the forums however the project KB is working on is his. I don't see a reason to alienate him for wanting to offer choice, I am however not up on all the drama surrounding the project and the Doc team. Personal feelings and rude comments aside is his project hurting anything? None that I can see.

I want to be as fair as possible so I must say that not all of the forum staff, but many do. Some of them who do, do so only rarely but there are a couple who are consistently abrasive and who have violated the forum guidelines a number of times. I have no doubt that if they were regular users there would have been repercussions long ago. These double standards are unacceptable.

I can agree with that in recent weeks strict policy has not been followed and I think personal feelings and emotions are running wild with this current situation from both forum staff and certain forum users. The situations I am aware of will be addressed.

Allow me to reiterate what I said in my quote. First, I am against censorship. *Nothing* should be removed from the public's view once it has been in the public's view.

We are walking a fine line on this issue in some situations it is nessesary to remove/censor certain posts. However, I do agree with you to an extent and possibly some material regarding the automatix situation was remove/moved that possibly shouldn't have and I will review and address that issue. One thing that needs to be remember forum staff try to follow the set policy we have in place which was approved by the CC mind you.

Humans make mistakes and can only grow from those mistakes.

I do believe choice is important to the user. That is why I would like the choice to read or not to read *all* threads and *all* posts that were posted in the public's view. If a thread or part of a thread is deleted then my choice to read that material (an especially important aspect if the material is referred to by non-deleted threads/posts) is being taken away and I am being "directed and controlled". Furthermore, I feel that anything that pertains to forum business should be in the public's view. I recall the Community Council having the same stance and was very pleased when it made the suggestion to make the staff business forums read-only for the public. I was disappointed to see that has yet to happen.

The first part your your comment I address above I think. For the second part the staff forum section will not be made open its a means of communication between the administrator and forum staff that doesn't pretain to anyone else. That would be like saying ok post all your PM's and Email's online for everyone to see. The staff section is that a staff section and there isn't need for any further discussion on the topic I will not change my stance.

Second, reasonable guidelines can and should be enforced. They should be enforced *equally* regardless of forum status, regardless of whether or not the staff agrees or disagrees with a poster, and regardless of personal relationships between the staff and certain forum users. Agreed. Forum staff need to stick to the set policy specifically #8 of the forum moderator guidelines and personal feelings should not be involved when performing moderator functions. However that does go both ways forum users who harass and attack personaly in the present situation should also keep in mind they are violating forum policy. It's a two way street.

I hope that addresses some of the issues. To wrap up a few other situations at hand yet again..

Yes, I currently pay for these forums. Yes, Canonical donated $900 this year for server costs. Yes, they did offer me a server to host the site on a few weeks ago and I appreciate their kind offer. However, I have been given another method of hosting which will bear no cost to anyone and which will replace our current hosting in April when the current server contracts have ended.

It has come to my attention a few times about staff members making comments about forum policy to clarify the end decision lies with me and if the policy was to change I personally will state it publically. You can follow forum changes here.

It doesn't matter where the forums are hosted or who pays for it. What does matters is they are online for the Ubuntu community to thrive from. It matters that forum policy is followed by all forum users including staff, it matters we can all get along and realize the fact people are different and will interpret policy differently, it matters the Ubuntu community needs to respect the fact this forum is a large part of Ubuntu culture.

These conflicts are silly and only take away from the new users experience on the forums.

My end statement, people are only human they make mistakes to grow.

It doesn't matter where the forums are hosted or who pays for it. What does matters is they are online for the Ubuntu community to thrive from. It matters that forum policy is followed by all forum users including staff, it matters we can all get along and realize the fact people are different and will interpret policy differently, it matters the Ubuntu community needs to respect the fact this forum is a large part of Ubuntu culture.

These conflicts are silly and only take away from the new users experience on the forums.

My end statement, people are only human they make mistakes to grow. Great post ubuntu-geek my one question is regardless of where the forums are hosted what will be the CC involvment, I have read in places that you have asked for more CC involvment. It seems to me that this could only help the forums have done very well in the last 11 months and you have done a great job. Ubuntu has also done very well and Mark has done a great job. IMHO ubuntu would not have been as successfull as it was without these forums.

Also in my oppinion no matter what if the forums are offical / unoffical or anything else they will affect the ubuntu comunity as a whole because we are such a large community.

I would love to see the forums under the watchfull eye of Mark, he seems to always be very fair and good at dealing with all the issues, and the CC I think it could only be a good thing. I know there are issues here that im not aware of but Mark has always been very good at dealing with that (Is ubuntu a fork, spoon, delta, or something else of debian lol been waiting to bring that up) Mark has delt very well with some of the issues that the debian community has had with ubuntu, and I have the a lot of respect for him, as well as the ubuntu staff, and hope that the ubuntu forum community as well as the ubuntu community grow from this.

#1: http://www.ubuntulinux.org/community/forums - Does not label us as official. But firstly we call/called our selves the offical forums secondly we are the only forums listed here http://www.ubuntulinux.org/support/supportoptions/support/supportoptions/freesupport (This page is found by clicking support then free support)

I also think its worth while to point out that yes the CC seems to be taking this as seriously as us https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda

I hope this made as much sence on paper as it did in my head

Good post Ubuntu-Geek, I am happy to see this thread making some good progress. Couple of quick comments:

#1: http://www.ubuntulinux.org/community/forums - Does not label us as official.

That page makes no distinction between "official" and "non-official" - all those forums are officially recognised by Ubuntu. This is the only English language one on the page.

#2: When starting up Firefox in ubuntu the main page the user first gets does not even mention the forums the last time I checked it does however mention the Wiki, IRC and Mailing Lists. If we are an official method of support we should be listed there as well.

That is a five minute fix. If you file a bug, we'll be sure to remember to fix it in the appropriate place. If not, I'll remember it anyway. :D

Again, I'm really happy to see things moving forward.

Matt

Great post ubuntu-geek my one question is regardless of where the forums are hosted what will be the CC involvment, I have read in places that you have asked for more CC involvment. It seems to me that this could only help the forums have done very well in the last 11 months and you have done a great job. Ubuntu has also done very well and Mark has done a great job. IMHO ubuntu would not have been as successfull as it was without these forums.

I think the CC involvment is something TBD. I am optimistic some logistical issues can be hammered out between them and myself to more effectivly support each other.

I would love to see the forums under the watchfull eye of Mark, he seems to always be very fair and good at dealing with all the issues, and the CC I think it could only be a good thing. I know there are issues here that im not aware of but Mark has always been very good at dealing with that (Is ubuntu a fork, spoon, delta, or something else of debian lol been waiting to bring that up) Mark has delt very well with some of the issues that the debian community has had with ubuntu, and I have the a lot of respect for him, as well as the ubuntu staff, and hope that the ubuntu forum community as well as the ubuntu community grow from this.

Mark has always offered me his thoughts and shared his information about the forums and hopefully will continue todo so. He has also stated he doesn't want to get in the way of letting me run the forum. I am and always will be open to his suggestions.

I also think its worth while to point out that yes the CC seems to be taking this as seriously as us https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda

The CC Agenda page is edited by anyone the items on there represent users who wish to complaint possibly not that of the CC.

Thanks for sharing your comments.. []("https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda")

Good post Ubuntu-Geek, I am happy to see this thread making some good progress. Couple of quick comments:

That page makes no distinction between "official" and "non-official" - all those forums are officially recognised by Ubuntu. This is the only English language one on the page.

Ok great did not know they were all official. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

That is a five minute fix. If you file a bug, we'll be sure to remember to fix it in the appropriate place. If not, I'll remember it anyway. :D

Again, I'm really happy to see things moving forward.

Matt

Ok I will open a ticket thanks for your comments.

The CC Agenda page is edited by anyone the items on there represent users who wish to complaint possibly not that of the CC.

Thanks for sharing your comments.. []("https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda") lol yes I understand that but at least the issues have been raised on both sides. was all I was trying to point out.

Good post Ubuntu-Geek, I am happy to see this thread making some good progress. Couple of quick comments:

That page makes no distinction between "official" and "non-official" - all those forums are officially recognised by Ubuntu. This is the only English language one on the page.

That is a five minute fix. If you file a bug, we'll be sure to remember to fix it in the appropriate place. If not, I'll remember it anyway. :D

Again, I'm really happy to see things moving forward.

Matt

I think we all are.

One question, would it be more accurate to say that these were the official Anglophone Ubuntu Forums?

Ok I will open a ticket thanks for your comments. Sorry, forgot to say: file it against ubuntu-docs. One question, would it be more accurate to say that these were the official Anglophone Ubuntu Forums? Well I don't think it makes a lot of difference, "English" in this case refers to the language ;)

I realised that when I reread your post! Sorry everyone for appearing just a tad pedantic. *cough*

Much official Ubuntu work is being done by unpaid volunteers. But that's one thing.

To be constructive, I see two ways ahead for the forums:

1) Remain official - all moderators must sign and abide with the Ubuntu code of conduct, and moderation should be light-handed and only directed against obvious trolls and spammers. 2) Go unofficial - it should be made clear from the layout, that these forums are not an official part of Ubuntu.

Personally, I'd prefer 1), but 2) would be another obvious solution. That would make the mailing lists and IRC channels the only "real" Ubuntu communication channels, and that would avoid confusion. That's a very good idea, agger. I think that on an official forum, all staff should at least be Ubunteros (have signed the Code of Conduct) and all admins should be Ubuntu Members (approved by the Community Council). I'll add that to the CC agenda :)

I think that on an official forum, all staff should at least be Ubunteros (have signed the Code of Conduct) and all admins should be Ubuntu Members (approved by the Community Council). I'll add that to the CC agenda

That is an interesting idea, which I would tend to agree with. I believe it has been discussed in the past. However, if it can be agreed without recourse to the CC, I see no need to bother them with it by putting it on the Agenda. Many Ubuntu teams establish this sort of requirements without recourse to the CC.

That's a very good idea, agger. I think that on an official forum, all staff should at least be Ubunteros (have signed the Code of Conduct) and all admins should be Ubuntu Members (approved by the Community Council). I'll add that to the CC agenda :) The three admins of this site are Ubuntu members and have been approved.. Just a FYI

Right, I was aware of that.

The three admins of this site are Ubuntu members and have been approved.. Just a FYI

I signed it before I became a mod. I'm not sure exactly what the CC piece would entail. Is it akin to the line when you get married 'speak now or forever hold your peace?' :)

That's a very good idea, agger. I think that on an official forum, all staff should at least be Ubunteros (have signed the Code of Conduct) and all admins should be Ubuntu Members (approved by the Community Council). I'll add that to the CC agenda :)

Why?

Why? I guess because signing the document officially (geez I hate using that word nowadays) binds their actions to the CoC... Though the kind of people we put up as staff would do so on their own anyway.

Thanks for an in-depth and clearly well-thought out reply.

If we are truly official then we need to be known as that from the ubuntu side.

#1: http://www.ubuntulinux.org/community/forums - Does not label us as official.

#2: When starting up Firefox in ubuntu the main page the user first gets does not even mention the forums the last time I checked it does however mention the Wiki, IRC and Mailing Lists. If we are an official method of support we should be listed there as well. I agree...this is something that needs to be addressed (probably to the CC).

#3: We need to have policy in place on the ubuntu side to protect the forums it has been stated before the current policy and CoC doesnt do a very good job of protecting or upholding the forum policy. Okay...I'm not sure I understand. You're referring to a CoC and policy addendum, not superceding the CoC and current policy, right?

#4: As I have said for over a year now and have requested multiple times more involvement from some of the CC members or staff at Ubuntu would be nice on this forum it would be nice to see a balance. By participating in the discussions here the understanding of how the forums differ from IRC and Mailing Lists would be prominent. This is something that bothers me about the CC...instead of the seats being occupied by random members it would make more sense to me for each seat to be occupied by a member from each of the main areas of the whole Ubuntu proper. I realize there's not much you can do about that, at least directly...I was just musing.

I need to make a comment on this as it was done on the forums however the project KB is working on is his. I don't see a reason to alienate him for wanting to offer choice, I am however not up on all the drama surrounding the project and the Doc team. Personal feelings and rude comments aside is his project hurting anything? None that I can see. Well, this thread has provided some clarification. However, now your statement brings up another question. Is the Doc KingBahamuts project or is this a forums project? We've been told (earlier in the thread) that it's a forum project. Now you seem to imply that it's a personal project. I'm once again a bit confused.

The first part your your comment I address above I think. For the second part the staff forum section will not be made open its a means of communication between the administrator and forum staff that doesn't pretain to anyone else. That would be like saying ok post all your PM's and Email's online for everyone to see. The staff section is that a staff section and there isn't need for any further discussion on the topic I will not change my stance. Here is where it looks like we simply differ in philosophy. I'll leave it alone.

Thanks again for such a good reply, ubuntu-geek. It's really appreciated.

Note: I started this reply about half-an-hour after ubuntu-geek posted and had to leave in the middle. I'm posting it without looking what else was posting between the time I started and now. :)

Well, this thread has provided some clarification. However, now your statement brings up another question. Is the Doc KingBahamuts project or is this a forums project? We've been told (earlier in the thread) that it's a forum project. Now you seem to imply that it's a personal project. I'm once again a bit confused.

Well, KingBahamut is in charge of the project, though the forum staff does sanction the project...

As far as competition between the doc repo and the wiki, I really hope it isn't interpreted that way... The Doc Wiki was something to solve a forum issue (when mistakes are found in the original article, or someone has something new to contribute, consolidating 10 pages of comments into coherent ammendments to the original article), and we just happened to pick a Wiki as the best method. We do not compete with the Ubuntu Wiki and they are free to take articles from our Doc Wiki to their wiki... If licensing was ever an issue (we just picked a license to temporarily govern the info in a open source fashion), please have the Doc team guys contact us -- we'd be happy to work with them on more appropriate terms.

I agree...this is something that needs to be addressed (probably to the CC).

Thanks to Matthew East we are getting this fixed..

Okay...I'm not sure I understand. You're referring to a CoC and policy addendum, not superceding the CoC and current policy, right?

Correct an addendum.

Well, this thread has provided some clarification. However, now your statement brings up another question. Is the Doc KingBahamuts project or is this a forums project? We've been told (earlier in the thread) that it's a forum project. Now you seem to imply that it's a personal project. I'm once again a bit confused.

This is KB's personal project that uses forum information.

I hope that helps to clarify..

Much official Ubuntu work is being done by unpaid volunteers. But that's one thing.

To be constructive, I see two ways ahead for the forums:

1) Remain official - all moderators must sign and abide with the Ubuntu code of conduct, and moderation should be light-handed and only directed against obvious trolls and spammers. 2) Go unofficial - it should be made clear from the layout, that these forums are not an official part of Ubuntu.

Personally, I'd prefer 1), but 2) would be another obvious solution. That would make the mailing lists and IRC channels the only "real" Ubuntu communication channels, and that would avoid confusion. That's a very good idea, agger. I think that on an official forum, all staff should at least be Ubunteros (have signed the Code of Conduct) and all admins should be Ubuntu Members (approved by the Community Council). I'll add that to the CC agenda :) That is an interesting idea, which I would tend to agree with. I believe it has been discussed in the past. However, if it can be agreed without recourse to the CC, I see no need to bother them with it by putting it on the Agenda. Many Ubuntu teams establish this sort of requirements without recourse to the CC.

I would also like see 1 over 2. And would like to suggest a vote. However I understand that at the end of the day the choice comes down to the staff.

That's a very good idea, agger. I think that on an official forum, all staff should at least be Ubunteros (have signed the Code of Conduct) and all admins should be Ubuntu Members (approved by the Community Council). I'll add that to the CC agenda :) Now, I recall hearing something about the CC discussing decentralizing the membership process...make it so that the official groups themselves would be able to grant membership, based on the same guidelines used now...significant and sustained contribution to the community. I don't know how (if) that idea has progressed further, but I can see a policy like that being great for what you mentioned because I believe ubuntu-geek bases staff choices on significant and sustained contributions. So pretty much what I'm saying is that someone who is brought on forums staff might be able to be granted Ubuntu membership at the same time.

Of course, not to beat a dead horse, but that *would* mean that the forum staff selection process might have to be more open... *cringes*

Now, I recall hearing something about the CC discussing decentralizing the membership process...make it so that the official groups themselves would be able to grant membership, based on the same guidelines used now...significant and sustained contribution to the community. I don't know how (if) that idea has progressed further, but I can see a policy like that being great for what you mentioned because I believe ubuntu-geek bases staff choices on significant and sustained contributions. So pretty much what I'm saying is that someone who is brought on forums staff might be able to be granted Ubuntu membership at the same time.

Of course, not to beat a dead horse, but that *would* mean that the forum staff selection process might have to be more open... *cringes* I would be down for this.. You are correct normally users who are very active get asked to become a staff member. However, that isnt the only way to become a staff member. I have been working on a system that will display when we have a opening and anyone can then apply, however I am not done with this yet.

The same would go for the forum teams anyone would be able to request to be part of a team and then would be approved by the team captain.

Just some quick stuff after reading things entire thread again and talking with jdong about various issues. I am prepaired to make a few changes in the effort of openness. One I will open the Jail for public read access in its current state for all to see nothing removed/edited. Secondly, I will be revamping the staff guidelines about deleting posts and implementing a more secure and trackable method of editing/moving posts. From this day forward out right deleting posts will be frowned upon.

Just some quick stuff after reading things entire thread again and talking with jdong about various issues. I am prepaired to make a few changes in the effort of openness. One I will open the Jail for public read access in its current state for all to see nothing removed/edited. Secondly, I will be revamping the staff guidelines about deleting posts and implementing a more secure and trackable method of editing/moving posts. From this day forward out right deleting posts will be frowned upon.<thunderous applause> Thank you, your responsiveness is appreciated. You rock!

Just some quick stuff after reading things entire thread again and talking with jdong about various issues. I am prepaired to make a few changes in the effort of openness. One I will open the Jail for public read access in its current state for all to see nothing removed/edited. Secondly, I will be revamping the staff guidelines about deleting posts and implementing a more secure and trackable method of editing/moving posts. From this day forward out right deleting posts will be frowned upon. This is good news for all of us. :) The members get their openess, and the staff get happier members. Everybody wins.

-Wild

Great!

/me bows to ubuntu-geek for acting so quickly and so wisely. :D

I would also like to mention the start of the Forum Resolution Team and Forum resolution center. Currently issues will be handled by the Administration team until a full resolution team is put in place. I have contacted my contacts at Ubuntu/Canonical about creating an official set of policies and guidelines that can benefit both partys and I hope we can move forward..

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=123

This is an excellent result to what has been a very productive thread!

Congratulations to all involved.

p.s. I have posted a link on the sounder mailing list so that others in the community are aware of the good progress made on this issue! :)

I would also like to mention the start of the Forum Resolution Team and Forum resolution center. Currently issues will be handled by the Administration team until a full resolution team is put in place. I have contacted my contacts at Ubuntu/Canonical about creating an official set of policies and guidelines that can benefit both partys and I hope we can move forward..

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=123Wow! You are just impressing me left and right today. Thanks, again.

Sounds good.

Cheers.

Trust us folks , we are working hard to bring these forums back to the fantastic place it has always been . We have some growing pains but we will make it .

me stupid. delete this post.

Some peace at last :) Well done everyone :) :)

The admins/mods here, really do make these the best forums around. =D>

Well, KingBahamut is in charge of the project, though the forum staff does sanction the project...

As far as competition between the doc repo and the wiki, I really hope it isn't interpreted that way... The Doc Wiki was something to solve a forum issue (when mistakes are found in the original article, or someone has something new to contribute, consolidating 10 pages of comments into coherent ammendments to the original article), and we just happened to pick a Wiki as the best method. We do not compete with the Ubuntu Wiki and they are free to take articles from our Doc Wiki to their wiki... If licensing was ever an issue (we just picked a license to temporarily govern the info in a open source fashion), please have the Doc team guys contact us -- we'd be happy to work with them on more appropriate terms.

As has always been maintained Jdong.

All i need are instructions....and the request to do what is nessecary.

The Doc team is aware of my willingness, already.

I am glad some progress has been made and this situation is starting to calm itself down.

Just some quick stuff after reading things entire thread again and talking with jdong about various issues. I am prepaired to make a few changes in the effort of openness. One I will open the Jail for public read access in its current state for all to see nothing removed/edited. Secondly, I will be revamping the staff guidelines about deleting posts and implementing a more secure and trackable method of editing/moving posts. From this day forward out right deleting posts will be frowned upon.

I join the applause: This is great news! I'm glad to see the issues are addressed.

Just some quick stuff after reading things entire thread again and talking with jdong about various issues. I am prepaired to make a few changes in the effort of openness. One I will open the Jail for public read access in its current state for all to see nothing removed/edited. Secondly, I will be revamping the staff guidelines about deleting posts and implementing a more secure and trackable method of editing/moving posts. From this day forward out right deleting posts will be frowned upon.

Yea! Now everyone can see my projects in the jail. Some are cooler than others.

Hi Admin-Team,

I want to join the Thank-Yous for opening the jail to the public and the creation of the resolution center.

You did very much for the liability of this forum with this openess!

Rooster