Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> It is well understood that secret laws and secret courts are not a
> desirable feature for any government. I feel that the same should hold
> true for our community. The procedures leading up to a ban, the
> evidence collected, the criteria the evidence must meet and the
> persons making the final decision should all be public record. I
> reference the Social Contract mandate to "not hide problems" in
> support of this concept.
The reason why firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com do not disclose or
discuss bans in public are because:
1) We wish to avoid negative connotations from someone being temporarily
banned being attached to the person after they have rectified their
2) In the case where some agent is clearly trolling or otherwise
engaging in attention seeking behavior, posting publicly just adds
additional indication of this behavior.
That said, for firstname.lastname@example.org, everything regarding a ban is sent to
email@example.com which is available to all DDs, and bans are announced to
> I hope many of you will agree that while the CoC may be a necessary
> feature for our community it should be governed in a transparent,
> policy-driven and unbiased manner with detailed record keeping and
> peer review.
I don't believe too detailed of a procedure is going to be feasible
without dramatically wasting listmaster@, owner@, IRC operators, and
wiki admin's time. We certainly can publish bans on -private, and I'm OK
with there being review after the fact if necessary, but I'm not
personally going to waste my limited time with a burdensome bureaucratic
procedure to actually put the ban in place in the first case.
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications.
-- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p244