On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote: > Ean Schuessler <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not require > > a record keeping process. I actually agree with Steve that we should not > > be concerned about publicly advertising the bans. A ban should have been > > proceeded by a warning and should be reasonable and clear-cut given the > > circumstances. By the time a ban is issued it should have been fairly > > obvious that the recipient effectively "signed on the dotted line" for > > it. > > Personally, I would much rather just let the listmasters decide how to > handle it. I certainly don't think a blanket requirement for a warning is > necessary, and would much rather let someone make a judgement call. The > person who started posting physical threats in response to the recent TC > decision, and who had never participated in the project previously, didn't > need a warning. The CoC takes into account "having a bad day", and instead specifically focuses on "serious or persistent offenders". (i.e. one-time verbiage that isn't to be taken seriously is not what the CoC is about.) > The level of process should be proportional to the level of injury that > could be caused by the action. We're talking about an action (temporary > bans) that is considerably milder than a traffic ticket. We should pick a > corresponding level of process. To keep from repeating it, everything below is "IMHO": The CoC isn't about process, but rather meant to encourage keeping communications civil and discouraging uncivil communication, along with stating some reasoning. It's intentionally short and simple. The specific process to use concerning consequences as well as the specific consequences are a related but separate matter. For the CoC it's enough to simply say that there are consequences and a hint about what could realistically be done. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle Chris.Knadle@coredump.us
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.