[Interest] List on moderation

[Sze Howe Koh]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 21:32, Andy Shaw <andy.shaw at qt.io> wrote:
>
> This seems as a good summary as any. Thanks Swe-Howe.
>
> We have taken the list off moderation now, so please do not do post personal attacks or insult and be derogatory. We don't want to have to moderate the list and want everything to be open for all and that this community is a safe one for everyone to take part in.
>
> I hope you all have a relaxing weekend.
>
> Kind regards,
> Andy

Thanks Andy for encouraging the mailing list to run smoothly and
civilly, and for lifting restrictions again. (I suppose restrictions
would be re-imposed if things start to flare up again, like a virus
outbreak)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Interest <interest-bounces at qt-project.org> on behalf of Howe Koh Sze <szehowe.koh at gmail.com>
> Date: Friday, 17 July 2020 at 14:47
> To: "interest at qt-project.org" <interest at qt-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [Interest] List on moderation
>
>     On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 13:37, Bernhard Lindner
>     <private at bernhard-lindner.de> wrote:
>     >
>     > > Ps: I usually don't read emails from xyz fully, but every now and then, I like the
>     > > critical approach, I just wish that these emails were straight to the point.
>     >
>     > Same here.
>     >
>     > Roland, maybe you would reach more people if you could make it short and a little less emotional?
>
>     * Being critical is OK.
>     * Being emotional is OK.
>     * Being long-winded is OK.
>     * Going off on a tangent once in a while is OK.
>
>     * Challenging the status quo is OK.
>     * Presenting personal opinions is OK.
>     * Presenting sound technical arguments is OK.
>     * Pointing out the flaws in others' approaches/arguments/ideas is OK.
>
>     * Being insulting and derogatory is _not_ OK.
>     * Going off on a tangent frequently is _not_ OK.
>     * Repeatedly hijacking threads and derailing them for one's own agenda
>     is _not_ OK.
>     * Making factually incorrect statements, and then refusing to retract
>     or acknowledge them when the error is pointed out, is _not_ OK.

I forgot an important set:

* Extolling the virtues of a particular technology/methodology is OK.
* Highlighting the flaws and limitations of a particular
technology/methodology is OK.

* Demanding or coercing all programmers to avoid a particular
technology/methodology -- for all industries and use-cases -- is _not_
OK.


Regards,
Sze-Howe