Re: Please switch freebsd-accessibility@ to open posting

On 2022-07-02 17:00, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Wow just wow, I believe we deserve a minimum of respect and
> benevolence. Being patronized like that is clearly the opposite of
> that.

Instead of calling me patronizing and disrespectful without (apparently) 
considering whether you were both first, you could have focused on the 
issues I raised.

> 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.

What you resorted to instead is known as the tone argument, and is often 
used (knowingly or unknowingly) as a derailing or silencing method. See 
https://www.speak-up.org/derail/#toneargument for a good description. 
(The whole page is good reading for anyone interested in learning more 
on derailing.)

-- 
#BlackLivesMatter #TransWomenAreWomen #AccessibilityMatters 
#StandWithUkrainians
English: he/him/his (singular they/them/their/theirs OK)
French: il/le/lui (iel/iel and ielle/ielle OK)
Tagalog: siya/niya/kaniya (please avoid sila/nila/kanila)