-1 the filter can't be tailored to your idiosyncrasies, if you don't like the title of a post, don't read it.

+1 - I think it is useful to have content filtering like for emails.

aacid's suggestion also works, but in practice, we just set up filters when we do not want to get emails that we consider spam or distraction for ourselves. So, I think a proper filtering mechanism would be a less distractive way of handling these.

Certain titles can trigger bad emotions for people or just in general make them leave planet KDE altogether if they find too many "irrelevant" titles over time. We can keep them around by allowing them to filter so that only relevant posts come through.

I would be against this as all of life is political so it would mean covering many topic including Free Software and KDE. Discussing politics is a good thing and reading about people's activities and interests outside KDE code is a good thing which builds community.

In T12322#212816, @jriddell wrote:

I would be against this as all of life is political so it would mean covering many topic including Free Software and KDE. Discussing politics is a good thing and reading about people's activities and interests outside KDE code is a good thing which builds community.

Hence it being a filter, like languages, so you can choose whether you want to or not.
Technically one could also remove the language filter and say it's nice to learn other language and, potentially, different cultures.

Forcing it on people, on the other hand, can imho leave to alienation, and as of now, I know of at least two people who did quit reading it due to that. If the majority want's that: okay, fine. I'd just like to give people the option to keep things they get bombared with in other places out of communities they joined and interact with for different reasons.

Yes, that is fine. You do not have to set up filters if you like all. But there are people who would like to have special focus on certain topics, e.g. purely technical.

I don't know how such a filter could work in practice. There's no consensus on when a political topic is a KDE matter or not, as we e.g. saw in the climate change debate recently. As an international community that heavily relies on free traversal of borders many political issues are in our scope, too. Then there's patents, privacy which is a community goal(!), ... And Planet KDE is explicitly not a project news feed - the description of the planet says it's for personal blogs - so a filter based on whether a post is about a project or not would seem go go along its nature. Plus the e.V. and community matters are also "projects" in some sense.

It's very hard to arrive at a shared definition of "controversial" because if there was universal agreement it generally wouldn't be controversial. "Live and let live" and empathy and respect for people with diverse opinions seems to be the easier way to go for me.

It is really not that complex and so much simpler than you think. Check practically any content filtering (pretty much nearly all platforms) where content is tagged by keywords and then you can follow certain keywords. It is the basis of the internet these days for SEO and many other purposes, really.

It has been working in practice for ages already.

Also, brexit has nothing to do with free move across the border. As a KDE developer visiting a place does not really have to apply for permanent residency, etc. But really, I would not go into the details of politics. This is exactly what some of us would very much like to avoid. I do not mind if you want to read all, just please, kindly do not force your opinion upon everyone in the community.

I'm not in favor of implementing content scanning and profiling based on keywords on the Planet.

Political and non-controversial might be difficult, KDE or non-KDE I think should be feasible.
I agree with Lazlo that there are other systems that seem to be doing fine, so I think we should be able to do it, too.
However, I trust less in machines and automations and rather in common sense, as in: bloggers are mature enough to know if a blog post is about something KDE or something less related, but personally important.

And it is, as I wrote, indeed a heated topic, which is why I'd like to avoid it if possible in communities.

Example: since I made these suggestions, I had false accusations about political affiliation thrown at me and ideas called idiosyncrasies, which personally I think goes a bit against the code of conduct. That's one of the reasons why I'd like to keep politics to a minimum, it appears hard to discuss these without insults being thrown around.

I do not understand why. KDE has mostly had the spirit of not limiting its community to a single decision when it comes to preferences. As I understand, the outcome of the matrix, irc, etc, debate was also this. People should be empowered to work the way they find it efficient. KDE has not forced a single solution on all which is what you seem to be proposing. I find it inconsiderate that we respect your preferences, but we do not get the same respect for our preferences.

By the way, I am no longer on the mailing list, but will try to follow this issue through.

I think goes a bit against the code of conduct.

Hmm - I tried many times in the thread to explain this, but I think you still don't have awareness on just how bad it is what you did today. You took issue with a particular blog post, which was fine under established community consensus, and decided to write a take-down to the community list in the hopes of having people gang up on it. While not bringing anything new to an old debate and wasting everyone's time and energy. When people were understandibly upset by this kind of behavior you started talking about "false accusations" and now about political issues, which is ironic - because the content of the blog post is irrelevant to why what you did was bad, and never came up other than (equally unfortunately) from Laszlo. This is far into the bad.

KDE has not forced a single solution on all which is what you seem to be proposing.

No, you're trying to force a single solution of "let's define KDE as what I find tasteful based on keyword blacklists".

In T12322#212841, @hein wrote:

I think goes a bit against the code of conduct.

Hmm - I tried many times in the thread to explain this, but I think you still don't have awareness on just how bad it is what you did today. You took issue with a particular blog post, which was fine under established community consensus, and decided to write a take-down to the community list in the hopes of having people gang up on it.

That's again a false accusation, as I already made clear on the mailing list I have no issues with that particular post or the author, but rather with political content on planet KDE, hence a suggestion for people who'd rather not have to deal with politics there, too, to filter it out.
So please let's focus on a potential solution and not politics and people.

Also please do note that a filter is configurable, so it's not forcing anything on anyone, but rather letting people decide if they'd rather see the planet for KDE / technical stuff or for political stuff.

Eike Hein, with due respect for your involvement in KDE, I think it is better to focus on understanding the concern and discuss that objectively than constantly calling others bad or inpappropriate behavior for different opinions to yours. Neither side has done that here except you. And it is neither objective, nor constructive. It does happen that people disagree. It is the nature of the world. I do not feel any need for proving any remorse for having my own opinion on planet kde. And definitely not unfortunate for that at all, whatsoever! Quite the contrary, I feel proud that I have my opinion and dare to raise it in a respectful way. I am happy to agree to disagree and leave at that. But having read your posts, I would advise you that you read upon psychological safety. Not to worry, I will not read Planet KDE any time soon again to avoid politics as that is the only way at the moment. And as a seemingly mutually working and beneficial solution, I have also unsubscribed from the mailing list. Thanks.

I'm not calling anyone bad for having differing opinions to mine, I am calling out that it's bad to go against community consensus without respecting it and acting accordingly. Restarting a debate without bringing something new to the table was bad. My own individual opinion doesn't matter - that's in fact the point. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

Could we please focus on the proposed solution.

If the decision is to not add filtering, that's fine. I will avoid planet, as will probably others like Lazlo, so I would have prefered to have a way to please people who want to read that content and people who think it clutters up / doesn't fit, as I think this would make us more inclusive to people who come to KDE for whatever reason, and would like to collaborate / contribute without politics.

But I'd like to discuss it on a level that is above throwing things at each other, please.

We currently have two proposals for how to implement your filter proposal:

• Content scanning and keyword blacklists. I don't see how to moderate the blacklist without defining what is a KDE matter and what is not.

• Self-moderation through self-categorization. This wouldn't work in the case that made you start the thread (you can continue to deny this, but I was in the public chat so I don't see the point ...) because the author has posted a statement saying they consider it a KDE matter. So it presumably fails your testcase already. You've not reacted to other examples I gave (climate, patents, travel restrictions, privacy, etc.).

I don't understand how editioralizing expression on the Planet more will make KDE more inclusive and not the opposite, either.

Also, I think the proposal is ironic because from a psych safety perspective what has you agitated is divisiveness, but filter bubbles and not having to live alongside other people is substantially why discourse has become so divisive, so in the grand scheme of things I find the proposal self-defeating.

It's getting a bit tiresome with these accusations, so to clarify:
my reasoning, stated in the very chat you mention, is and was, unedited,

"I don't need political bs in my Foss projects too. Mail to communtiy ML sent, I assume this will be interesting. But I'm starting to get a bit bothered that politics leak into lots of my spare time project, and people waste times and nerves on these debates there too, instead of what the project is for. *sigh*"

It never is, was or will be about a specific person (which I have no issues with) or a specific subject (which I even mostly agree with the blog post positions). It's about politics leaking into the project in places I personally would rather not also have politics leaked into, and that's it.

I assume you refer to the "I'm pretty sure that he has been told in the past when he blogged about brexit and his reaction was not favourable at all" comment, which was, as you can see in the backlog, a reply to a user asking if they should mail in, assuming the reaction would be bad, and then going on about party affilation (not going to quote here as I don't like publishing third party text without consent. So if we could please stop with these accusations and focus on the solution, thank you.

On whether it would work: it probably would not on all blog posts, but I'd already consider it an improvement. And I assume it would self-regulate itself as well, after all we are people and we can talk to each other, even if we have different opinions.

So I'd still be in favour of filtering.

In the discussion you said you don't read the Planet, but when you were pointed at this post it lead you to complain about politics on the Planet, so the post seems relevant and this solution doesn't address the cause for us discussing it. That seems like a broken solution so between this and the other stuff I would say -1 as it seems like even with the solution you'd be likely to complain about community consensus again.

Edit: Removed post is because I accidentally quoted myself.

As I wrote, "I'd like to, again last time I gave up, this time I want to at least mention it." so personally I still hope we can add such a filter. But if we can't: shame, then indeed I won't read it, and I'm afraid others won't, too. But I won't fight a majority decision.

In T12322#212839, @Fuchs wrote:

ideas called idiosyncrasies, which personally I think goes a bit against the code of conduct.

Maybe something got lost in Catalan->English translation here, i can't even begin to understand why you would feel it against the CoC

From the Catalan wikipedia "La idiosincràsia és un conjunt de peculiaritats i trets de cada individu" i.e. "idiosyncrasy is the set of peculiarities and traits of each individual"

That is not insulting, it's just a word that defines who and how you are.

In T12322#212870, @aacid wrote:

In T12322#212839, @Fuchs wrote:

ideas called idiosyncrasies, which personally I think goes a bit against the code of conduct.

Maybe something got lost in Catalan->English translation here, i can't even begin to understand why you would feel it against the CoC

oh, yeah, that's a lost in translation / cultural thing then, nevermind and thanks for the clear up :)

For what's worth (as in probably not much), I'm very much against this proposal. I stand with Jonathan here on the "all of life is political"... and besides Free Software is a *very* political movement.