On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > I think we should publish them, for several reasons: I'm in favor of this. There is clearly a trade-off between the interests of the individual being banned and those of the community which suffers the consequences of not knowing about bans, for the reasons you've mentioned. As the community is the most important value of any volunteer project, and also considering how conservative we are in banning people, I've no doubt where to place the cue in that trade-off. This is also why I do not think that disclosing bans to -private is good enough. Non-DDs (or simply DDs who don't read every -private mail) would have no way of knowing who is banned, and therefore might be tricked into thinking that specific bad behavior patterns visible in the mailing list archives have been tolerated. Once the principle of disclosing ban is established, we should adopt various clever communication techniques to minimize reputation damages to the involved individuals. In that respect, both Joey's and Enrico's suggestions in this thread seem very sane to me. Thanks for raising this topic, Steve. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature