Re: Should mailing list bans be published?
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 09:00:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > What do the rest of you think?
> Given how arbitrarly other bans have been proposed, I think that the
> outcome should stay private unless the banned person wishes so.
I don't understand this at all. Are you saying Debian listmasters, who
decide on bans, have been making arbitrary, and therefore badly
justified, bans? In other words, are you saying that they have
prevented, without sufficient justification, people from posting to
Debian mailing lists? If that's what you're saying, could you give
examples of this?
I doubt it has happened, but if it has, that's an excellent reason
make decisions about banning people from lists public.
a) Someone gets banned from the lists, and nobody is told they have
been or at least nobody is told publically. The person might deduce it
from the fact that their mails never show up in the list archives, or
that people stop responding to them, but that's not always very
likely. Other people probably won't realise it at all. It's nearly
impossible to argue against a ban you don't agree with, or the reasons
for the ban, if everything is kept secret.
b) Someone gets banned from the lists, and an explanation of why this
happened is posted in public. Anyone can review the decision, and if
it seems inappropriate, action can be taken. There is no room for
insinuating that the listmasters are abusing their powers. If the ban
was, in fact, inappropriate, it can be overturned, and the banned
person's reputation is cleared.
To me, b) is obviously the better choice.
PS. I realise you phrased your objection such that a literal
interpretation makes it be about the _proposed_ bans only. I
understand that even less. People can, and do, propose bans
willy-nilly regardless of how public the bans are.
http://www.cafepress.com/trunktees -- geeky funny T-shirts
http://gtdfh.branchable.com/ -- GTD for hackers