On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:55:07PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > Having said all that, I think it is legitimate to block certain abusers, but > it ought to be documented and there should be clear ways for removing that > block and for preventing innocent people from being blocked. I'm not saying > that I disagree with the original action in this case, but I certainly > disagree with the lack of transparency surrounding it. I wholly agree that the BTS admins need to be permitted to take reasonable actions to prevent, halt, and clean up abuse of the system. In the instant case, though, the "abuse" appears to me to be a horse of a different color from the truckloads of spam we've been getting, even to -done addresses. It looks more like a personal disagreement gone wrong. If there were some guidelines regarding the use of address-specific bans, it would be a vast improvement over the status quo. I also feel the BTS admins should have the freedom to define those guidelines. This should take place in an open manner so that the users of the BTS are represented can participate. I suspect that such a process would come up with guidelines that are an improvment on "that guy annoyed me, so I banned him". Often if a person simply takes the few minutes it requires to articulate his thoughts on something, he comes up with someone quite reasonable, and significantly better than management by gut instinct. -- G. Branden Robinson | Of two competing theories or Debian GNU/Linux | explanations, all other things branden@debian.org | being equal, the simpler one is to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | be preferred. -- Occam's Razor
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature