[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Regaining Access to the Control Bot

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

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

Reply to: