Re: Dealing with ITS abuse
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Chris Knadle wrote:
> Are you saying that if someone communicates abusively in the BTS
> publicly, they _shouldn't_ be publicly confronted about that at all?
The goal of any communication from owner@ regarding abuse isn't
confrontation, but correction and resumption of communication.
> Two particular bug reports I was invovled in recently had repeated
> abusive communication in them with no consequences that I could see
> for the one communicating abusively.
Why should there be consequences that you can see? Only in exceptional
circumstances do we actually use the controls that we have, but when
we do, only -private and the individual sanctioned are informed.
Reporting individuals are informed that we have addressed their
concerns, but not necessarily the manner in which it has been
addressed.
> I'm /not/ asking to know who got a "penalty flag" (I don't need to
> know) -- but I and others /do/ have a need to know if those exist
> and what they are. The only reason I've been looking at past events
> was to /infer/ what penalties exist due to a lack of information.
They exist. They are modified as necessary to fit a particular
situation, and range from warnings to technical restrictions on
communication to expulsion.
Don Armstrong
--
If I had a letter, sealed it in a locked vault and hid the vault
somewhere in New York. Then told you to read the letter, thats not
security, thats obscurity. If I made a letter, sealed it in a vault,
gave you the blueprints of the vault, the combinations of 1000 other
vaults, access to the best lock smiths in the world, then told you to
read the letter, and you still can't, thats security.
-- Bruce Schneier
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: