I’m really not waiting for this religious spam to appear in my RSS reader.
Please add back some form of filtering, or make some rules so that mozilla bloggers at least try to make their posts relevant.
~Grauw
-- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
It's one post. Marking it as read it in your feed reader isn't difficult. It's not a common occurrence. It includes no (primarily non-stylistic) exhortations to some morality (not that that should be considered in determining the worth of a blog post for a planet). You're totally free to remain an atheist, an agnostic, a Protestant, a scholar of divine bovinity, or whatever you want to be after having read it.
I suspect such a vitriolic reaction (from you or from anyone else) would not have occurred had the post been one in support of atheism, but there should be no difference in objectionableness between the two, all else equal.
I probably just fed a flame war. I intend not to post in this thread again unless some form of reasonable, productive discussion emerges involving p.m.o mods.
Jeff
P.S. -- This is not to say that were I to consider making such a post, I would make it planet-readable; I suspect I would not. The difference is one of top-down enforcement vs. self-restraint, and the former should be a last resort for extreme situations.
Maybe I went a bit overboard with calling it ‘spam’. It’s not constructive nor nice to Benjamin Smedberg. Sorry for that.
Jeff Walden schreef:
> Good grief.
> It's one post. Marking it as read it in your feed reader isn't > difficult. It's not a common occurrence. It includes no (primarily > non-stylistic) exhortations to some morality (not that that should be > considered in determining the worth of a blog post for a planet). > You're totally free to remain an atheist, an agnostic, a Protestant, a > scholar of divine bovinity, or whatever you want to be after having read > it.
Yes, it’s easy to skip. However it does not belong there, it’s thrown into my face without any explanation as to what it is or why it’s posted and would be even remotely interesting to me or any other reader of Planet Mozilla. Commenting is disabled as well. When I subscribe to a newspaper I expect to receive news and background stories. If I wanted religious texts, I’d subscribe to a religious magazine. I do consider Planet Mozilla a newspaper about Mozilla, and not religion.
I am not against posts that are off-topic per se, and neither do I mind topics being related to religion (Gervase Markham has a number of interesting posts about issues connected to christianity in the past), but "Holy is God! Holy and strong! Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us." followed by more worship of God’s holiness is just totally out of place on p.m.o.
> I suspect such a vitriolic reaction (from you or from anyone else) would > not have occurred had the post been one in support of atheism, but there > should be no difference in objectionableness between the two, all else > equal.
I indeed wouldn’t have responded so (logically, that doesn’t make me a hypocrite), but I wouldn’t argue with anyone who objected against such a post.
And I most certainly would expect a post saying ‘There is no god.’ (with comments disabled, also) would not be well-received either.
Maybe as an experiment I should create a blog about the Dutch localisation work and interleave my on-topic posts with posts about Viagra products and porn sites, and let that be published on Planet Mozilla.
> I probably just fed a flame war. I intend not to post in this thread > again unless some form of reasonable, productive discussion emerges > involving p.m.o mods.
I hope so.
> P.S. -- This is not to say that were I to consider making such a post, I > would make it planet-readable; I suspect I would not. The difference is > one of top-down enforcement vs. self-restraint, and the former should be > a last resort for extreme situations.
That sounds like a very sensible policy.
I hope some guidelines can be made, and people are encouraged to make mozilla-specific categories so they can decide on a post-by-post basis what is appropriate. Note that the blog in question does have such a category, so this was apparantly explicitly posted to Planet Mozilla.
~Grauw
-- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
On 07/04/2007 11:50 AM, _Laurens Holst_ spoke thusly:
> Yes, it’s easy to skip. However it does not belong there, it’s thrown > into my face without any explanation as to what it is or why it’s posted > and would be even remotely interesting to me or any other reader of > Planet Mozilla.
As previously discussed in this newsgroup[1], Planet Mozilla has a medium term plan of offering "at least two feeds at Planet Mozilla. One feed will be inclusive of whatever content community members offer. A second feed will offer, by methods still to be determined, only or mostly Mozilla-related content."[2]
> It's one post. Marking it as read it in your feed reader isn't > difficult. It's not a common
FWIW, I agree with Jeff wholeheartedly. Benjamin has decided to syndicate all his blog posts to planet (something I don't personally do) and we have decided (as readers of planet) that we're interested in what Benjamin has to say. We're not necessarily required to agree with what he has to say, nor must we like it. Freedom of speech runs both ways. We might think more or less of Benjamin for what he chose to syndicate to planet - that's between the reader and him, really. But we must afford him the choice and opportunity to syndicate what he wants.
> occurrence. It includes no (primarily non-stylistic) exhortations > to some morality (not that that should be considered in determining > the worth of a blog post for a planet). You're totally free to > remain an atheist, an agnostic, a Protestant, a scholar of divine > bovinity, or whatever you want to be after having read it.
> I suspect such a vitriolic reaction (from you or from anyone else) > would not have occurred had the post been one in support of > atheism, but there should be no difference in objectionableness > between the two, all else equal.
Absolutely right. I don't share Benjamin's beliefs, but I will defend to the end his right to hold those beliefs, just as I hope he would do for me. I also hope to learn more about Benjamin as a person through understanding more about his beliefs.
> I probably just fed a flame war. I intend not to post in this > thread again unless some form of reasonable, productive discussion > emerges involving p.m.o mods.
Maybe you did. Maybe I am, too. :)
I was happy to see Chris mention the work-only feed - I hope that's coming along, as I'm sure that many people are interested in that. (as an aside, I do think that some anti-spam guidelines are needed to avoid shilling and linkspamming, but am not exactly sure what those would look like)
> Jeff
> P.S. -- This is not to say that were I to consider making such a > post, I would make it planet-readable; I suspect I would not. The > difference is one of top-down enforcement vs. self-restraint, and > the former should be a last resort for extreme situations.
Preach it, brother Walden. ;)
Oh, and, Happy Easter / Passover to those celebrating / observing this weekend.
> Yes, it’s easy to skip. However it does not belong there, it’s thrown > into my face without any explanation as to what it is or why it’s posted > and would be even remotely interesting to me or any other reader of > Planet Mozilla. Commenting is disabled as well. When I subscribe to a > newspaper I expect to receive news and background stories. If I wanted > religious texts, I’d subscribe to a religious magazine. I do consider > Planet Mozilla a newspaper about Mozilla, and not religion.
As Chris already pointed out, you probably misunderstand what Planet Mozilla in its current form is meant to be. This is no Mozilla news magazine, if you want that, subscribe to MozillaZine. Planet Mozilla is a collection of personal blogs of Mozilla community members. It intentionally is not limited to Mozilla-related posts. We had long discussions about that, and it's planned to add a separate such page/site/feed in the future, as Chris also pointed out. This Planet Mozilla we have here is intentionally picturing community members' posts in their full perspective and broad distribution of topics and beliefs (OK, almost-full, as we're limiting to English language, basically).
We are a colorful, diverse community with different interests and beliefs that go well beyond Mozilla development. If you want a look into this whole community, Planet Mozilla is right for you. If you want to put blinkers on and see only a part of this community, you're in the wrong place. MozillaZine is the choice if you want a Mozilla development magazine. A future brother/sister page/site/feed to Planet Mozilla will be the choice if you want Mozilla-related blog posts only. No censoring on Planet Mozilla though. We (as in "the community") have been through that discussion and decided against that.
> It's one post. Marking it as read it in your feed reader isn't > difficult. It's not a common occurrence. It includes no (primarily > non-stylistic) exhortations to some morality (not that that should be > considered in determining the worth of a blog post for a planet). > You're totally free to remain an atheist, an agnostic, a Protestant, > a scholar of divine bovinity,
"Holy Cow, Batman!" said the Robbinical scholar.
(Sorry, couldn't resist that pun :) Back to the serious subject.
On 2007-04-07, Robert Kaiser <ka...@kairo.at> wrote: [snip]
> As Chris already pointed out, you probably misunderstand what Planet > Mozilla in its current form is meant to be. This is no Mozilla news > magazine, if you want that, subscribe to MozillaZine. Planet Mozilla is > a collection of personal blogs of Mozilla community members. It > intentionally is not limited to Mozilla-related posts. We had long > discussions about that, and it's planned to add a separate such > page/site/feed in the future, as Chris also pointed out. [...] > No censoring on Planet Mozilla though. We (as in "the community") > have been through that discussion and decided against that.
But that discussion happened only in the newsgroup, and I'm sure there are lots of people that read p.m.o. who didn't read that discussion and so don't know what's going on.
P.m.o. only really changed to its current unfiltered form a few weeks ago. Asa posted something very brief (aimed at bloggers rather than readers) about the removal of filters, but it might be good to say something about the changes to p.m.o. on the planet blog for those that didn't follow the long newsgroup discussion?
I'm not a big fan of religion either, but I think I probably have more of an understanding of posts about that than of stuff about maple leaves and senators or whatever Chris is talking about... some sort of sports game, I suppose ;P
> Laurens Holst schrieb: >> Yes, it’s easy to skip. However it does not belong there, it’s thrown >> into my face without any explanation as to what it is or why it’s >> posted and would be even remotely interesting to me or any other >> reader of Planet Mozilla. Commenting is disabled as well. When I >> subscribe to a newspaper I expect to receive news and background >> stories. If I wanted religious texts, I’d subscribe to a religious >> magazine. I do consider Planet Mozilla a newspaper about Mozilla, and >> not religion.
> As Chris already pointed out, you probably misunderstand what Planet > Mozilla in its current form is meant to be. This is no Mozilla news > magazine, if you want that, subscribe to MozillaZine. Planet Mozilla is > a collection of personal blogs of Mozilla community members. It > intentionally is not limited to Mozilla-related posts. We had long > discussions about that, and it's planned to add a separate such > page/site/feed in the future, as Chris also pointed out. This Planet > Mozilla we have here is intentionally picturing community members' posts > in their full perspective and broad distribution of topics and beliefs > (OK, almost-full, as we're limiting to English language, basically).
> We are a colorful, diverse community with different interests and > beliefs that go well beyond Mozilla development. If you want a look into > this whole community, Planet Mozilla is right for you. > If you want to put blinkers on and see only a part of this community, > you're in the wrong place. MozillaZine is the choice if you want a > Mozilla development magazine. A future brother/sister page/site/feed to > Planet Mozilla will be the choice if you want Mozilla-related blog posts > only. No censoring on Planet Mozilla though. We (as in "the community") > have been through that discussion and decided against that.
> Robert Kaiser
I am pretty sure that we have way more Mozilla people interested in sex than religion. So does it mean that we can put posts about sex, as long as it is in English, and that they will be syndicated on planet.mozilla.org just like Benjamin's posts? It would be fun to see blog posts on p.m.o like 'cunnilingus tutorial' or "how being a Mozilla developer helped me to get laid with the geeky girl next door" wouldn't it ? ;)
> On 2007-04-07, Robert Kaiser <ka...@kairo.at> wrote: > [snip] >> As Chris already pointed out, you probably misunderstand what Planet >> Mozilla in its current form is meant to be. This is no Mozilla news >> magazine, if you want that, subscribe to MozillaZine. Planet Mozilla is >> a collection of personal blogs of Mozilla community members. It >> intentionally is not limited to Mozilla-related posts. We had long >> discussions about that, and it's planned to add a separate such >> page/site/feed in the future, as Chris also pointed out. > [...] >> No censoring on Planet Mozilla though. We (as in "the community") >> have been through that discussion and decided against that.
> But that discussion happened only in the newsgroup, and I'm sure there are > lots of people that read p.m.o. who didn't read that discussion and so > don't know what's going on.
> P.m.o. only really changed to its current unfiltered form a few weeks ago. > Asa posted something very brief (aimed at bloggers rather than readers) > about the removal of filters, but it might be good to say something > about the changes to p.m.o. on the planet blog for those that didn't > follow the long newsgroup discussion?
> I'm not a big fan of religion either, but I think I probably have more of > an understanding of posts about that than of stuff about maple leaves and > senators or whatever Chris is talking about... some sort of sports game, I > suppose ;P
"I'm not a big fan of religion either" !!! You and Jesus have something in common....
Proverbs 17:28
-- Terry Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
pascal wrote: > I am pretty sure that we have way more Mozilla people interested in sex > than religion. So does it mean that we can put posts about sex, as long > as it is in English, and that they will be syndicated on > planet.mozilla.org just like Benjamin's posts?
I think the entire subject of "what if someone blogs about ____ on PMO?" is a ginormous rat-hole that we ought to avoid. I think it's much better to err on the side of openness, while the "new" PMO finds its voice, and avoid the subject of prior-restraint unless there's a concrete problem.
I have been following this all day and isn't it ironic that everyone has the right to voice their opinions on this topic. I don't see the difference between that and the right that a person has to express themselves in whatever way that they choose as long as it isn't harmful to Mozilla's reputation.
Two days ago I deleted a post on Spread Firefox which a man had posted of himself having anal sex with someone and shots of his penis. Should I have left it because that's how that person expresses themselves? No, because we have the right to control the content that represents Mozilla.
There's an obvious difference between someone's opinion or belief and outright inappropriate material. I'm a Christian myself but I didn't care for the post. I didn't even have to read the whole thing to know that it was something that I didn't like so I chose to move on.
Perhaps I'm reading Mozilla's mission statement wrong. I thought that promoting "choice" was a keyword in the sentence that wasn't just about choosing software.
>> I am pretty sure that we have way more Mozilla people interested in >> sex than religion. So does it mean that we can put posts about sex, as >> long as it is in English, and that they will be syndicated on >> planet.mozilla.org just like Benjamin's posts?
> I think the entire subject of "what if someone blogs about ____ on PMO?" > is a ginormous rat-hole that we ought to avoid. I think it's much better > to err on the side of openness, while the "new" PMO finds its voice, and > avoid the subject of prior-restraint unless there's a concrete problem.
> Justin
Well, obviously there is a concrete problem otherwise we wouldn't be debating here ;)
Yeah, the post struck me as poorly introduced, and as religious propaganda blurted out at my face. I'm an atheist. This was a rare occurrence. I moved on to the next post.
On 2007-04-08, Justin Dolske <dol...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> pascal wrote:
>> I am pretty sure that we have way more Mozilla people interested in sex >> than religion. So does it mean that we can put posts about sex, as long >> as it is in English, and that they will be syndicated on >> planet.mozilla.org just like Benjamin's posts?
> I think the entire subject of "what if someone blogs about ____ on PMO?" > is a ginormous rat-hole that we ought to avoid. I think it's much better > to err on the side of openness, while the "new" PMO finds its voice, and > avoid the subject of prior-restraint unless there's a concrete problem.
So I guess it's been decided that blogging about religion (or sex, politics, space travel, cats or even ice hockey) is generally not a concrete problem, as long as it's in English. Who decides when something is a concrete problem though? I guess the new planet team?
Laurens Holst wrote: > but "Holy is God! Holy and strong! Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us." > followed by more worship of God’s holiness is just totally out of place > on p.m.o.
I find it interesting that you assumed that this is a religious post. I saw it as a musical post (this being a hymn and all). Then again, maybe that's because I know Benjamin has a certain interest in music in general and in sacred music in particular... and that this is a somewhat integral part of his personality. People who play video games for fun can blog about a new video game and this is acceptable on Planet Mozilla; why can't people who play music for fun blog about a new piece of music?
> And I most certainly would expect a post saying ‘There is no god.’ (with > comments disabled, also) would not be well-received either.
How would you feel about quoting Nietzsche about God being dead? I can see how some people would react to that as being identical to the statement "There is no god", while those who are somewhat better educated would realize the social and historical context and perhaps be led to have an interesting thought or two.
-Boris
P.S. I'd like to put in a word here for the non-Christian non-atheists who are somewhat interested in things that are not part of their religion and found the reading the post led them to do fascinating. Not to mention learning a little more Greek from it.
Boris Zbarsky wrote: > I find it interesting that you assumed that this is a religious post. I > saw it as a musical post (this being a hymn and all).
One other thing. If the complaint is that there was no explanation that this is a hymn, or that in some other way there was not enough introduction (which complaint I've seen voiced in this thread)... I would say "tough; do some Googling."
I've taken the liberty to edit the subject slightly based on the last few posts by Boris, Laurens' apology for calling it spam and what I know of Benjamin as a person (which admittedly isn't all that much, but correlates strongly to what Boris has already written).
I think that the very existence of this newsgroup thread and some of the posts in it means that readers have already learned something about Mozilla as a community and Benjamin as a (comparatively prominent) member of the same. If it hadn't been for Ben's post and this newsgroup topic (thanks Laurens), I wouldn't have known that Boris takes an interest in Greek and/or Nietzsche, or that Mike Beltzner likes to quote Voltaire (when appropriate). You're not going to stop people from being different by stopping them from letting the community know about that - all you'll do is stifle (social) interaction between the people involved, which can never be good for a community project, as far as I can tell.
As for public responsibility, perhaps Planet should have a disclaimer that none of the contents are officially affiliated/endorsed with/by Mozilla. I'll go and file a bug on that if it hasn't been done already. Other than that, I don't see a problem with people posting their own opinion - that was one of the reasons there was a change in management: so there'd be less (perceived) censorship, and more (personal) interaction.
On 2007-04-08, Robert Accettura <rob...@accettura.com> wrote: [snip]
> Politics may be it's own issue as planet is hosted on mozilla.org a > non-profit. I'm not sure what the laws are regarding non-profits and > syndicating political natured blog posts... but I think we should dig > into that and figure it out.
IANAL, but I do work for another 501(c)(3) (US non-profit, and I think the Foundation is the same category of public charity), and I don't imagine it would be a problem. I don't think hosting the odd political comment on planet could ever be considered a "substantial part" of the Foundation's activities, so the only thing that would be a problem is if someone was actually campaigning for (or against) a specific candidate for public office in the US.
[rest of post snipped]
Some good explanations and responses in this thread, thanks. This stuff, along with the previous stuff that made the planet blog (which is rather hard to get to - unless I missed a link somewhere on http://blog.mozilla.com/planet it only lists the most recent post history unless you look at the feed) should go on a web page somewhere (or did it already?)
