Don Armstrong wrote:
No, if someone behaved abusively, you should in this case first be concerned about the abusive contributor justifying his actions, then about him recognizing his error(s) and apologizing (or in other words, promising to change his behavior). It's only at this point where respect is restored, cooperation can resume, and where you can simply watch out for new abusive behavior, indeed.On Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Chris Knadle wrote: > On Saturday, April 13, 2013 13:34:23, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Chris Knadle wrote: [...] > > Why should there be consequences that you can see? > > A man you work with is treating you badly [...] -- the behavior > continues in the same way it did before. > > Now the question: why would you need to know what consequences there > were? The only consequence I should be concerned about is whether the behavior stops or continues.
Unless you're aware that the consequence to the contributor was a restriction.
> People need feedback. That's why owner@ responds to the reporters to indicate that we have received their communication and addressed the issue.
My own experience unfortunately infirms that.
[And in cases where we do not respond, it's because we've missed or have not received the communication.]
> If from the point of view of the reporter the feedback isn't > working, then it begs the question of what the feedback was. If the behavior doesn't change or improve, reporting it again is the appropriate action.
If the reporter isn't aware that firstname.lastname@example.org reacted appropriately to the first report, I have to disagree, the reporter should escalate.
You can also always escalate problems to leader@.