Re: Please switch freebsd-accessibility@ to open posting

Le 2 juillet 2022 08:23:53 GMT+02:00, Pau Amma <pauamma@gundo.com> a écrit :
>On 2022-06-30 06:54, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 03:13:09AM +0000, Pau Amma wrote:
>>> I meant for it to be when I requested its creation and thought based on the
>>> email I received asking for list information that it would be by default,
>>> but per https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=264895#c5, the
>>> default was changed silently.
>> 
>> Yes when you requested you specifically asked for open mailing list it wasn't
>> changed silently it was missed in the initial request by myself, otherwise I
>> would have answered the following:
>> By default we do setup all the mailing list as subscription only
>> and/or moderated,
>> most mailing list were configured like this long ago and I first
>> dropped it for 6
>> month this politic while migrating to mlmmj and reinstanciated it back. Why?
>> because of the amount of spam that went through the mailing lists and
>> creates lot
>> of work for us postmaster:
>> - dealing with people complaining about spam in the mailing lists
>> - monitoring such emails and flagging them as such to cleanup the public
>>   archives as much as possible from the spam etc.
>> 
>> So beside strong arguments
>
>Here's one: "nothing about us without us".
>
>Accordingly, please consider the following:
>- post an apology to the list for accidentally not making it open then claiming "Subscription is easy" instead of asking us, including those of us with cognitive disabilities, how harder that extra hoop to jump through makes posting for us.
>- acknowledge the list exists primarily for our benefit, not the benefit of postmaster members or FreeBSD contributors as a whole (see the note at the end of  https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-accessibility/2021-October/000000.html for another example of that).
>- ask us what we need and want, mention constraints you have that are or may be relevant (like the effort curbing spam and any others that you think also worth mentioning), then let us hash out the trade-offs and what works better for us.
>
>It may be that no clear consensus or decision emerges, or that one emerges agreeing with your position. I'm not the only one with a stake in this, and will abide by the outcome. That, however, doesn't excuse you from reaching out to us or doing due diligence.
>
>Thanks for reading.
>

Wow just wow, I believe we deserve a minimum of respect and benevolence. Being patronized like that is clearly the opposite of that.

We are spending countless hours of free time to try to provide the best service as possible with the resource we have, we make mistake, we can also make bad choices and they can be revisited, but clearly not with such a disrespectful tone.

Bapt