Re: About expulsion requests
On 16 Mar 2006, MJ Ray spake thusly:
> Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> On 16 Mar 2006, Christoph Berg stated:
>>> I for myself would very much prefer the rumors, and maybe even
>>> publically spreading (leaking?) the word on irc than to deliver
>>> the expulsion request directly to every lurking
>>> slashdot/heise/whatever writer on earth. There is a difference.
>> We shall not hide problems?
> Indeed. If the expulsion request is so shameful it should not
> be made public, then maybe it is so shameful that it should not
> be made at all. Both of those that are now public knowledge
> (asuffield and svenl) seem far from being a "last resort"
> action: they are tactics in hate campaigns, whatever we think
> about the justification of those hate campaigns.
>> Having said that, the expulsion document states that the
>> person who is being subjected to the process is the one who gets to
>> decide whether the process is public or private, so sending the
>> original mail to a public list was an error.
> I disagree. The candidate only seems to get that choice
> after there are enough people gathered against them. When a
> totally crap request collapses without getting Q supporters,
> the request and supporters details stay in the star chamber.
> That allows people to make bigoted expulsion requests with
> relatively little personal reputation risk. They can keep
> going with the witchhunt until the candidate walks away.
I think the idea is that the person facing expulsion procedures
may not want future employers to be able to google about the
episode. Given that the process does fail, it would simplify matters
for the individual if they did not have to try to explain this to
people in the future.
Peter's Paradox: Employees in a hierarchy do not really object to
incompetence in their colleagues. -- Laurance J. Peter
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C