On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:45:05AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote: > > 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 agree with your general reasoning here. For mailing list bans, I think > it's pretty straightforward to implement a mechanism that is up to the > accountability requirements you ask for: just publish bans, as requested > / discussed in [1]. I don't think we need anything more than that. With > public bans one can review the actions of listmasters, without having to > force them to provide elaborate reasoning (which, as Don pointed out, > would be too bureaucratic with very little benefit, IMHO). If enough > people in the project are against a specific listmaster action, they can > resort to the usual mechanisms (e.g. a GR) to override listamsters. > > I understand that there are drawbacks in public bans, as Don pointed out > as well. But as I've argued in [2] I think the benefits for the > community of publishing them outweigh the drawbacks. With my experience of the last weeks, I can just say: without me. I won't public those bans in the public, if someone else wants to do that: feel free, but please don't count on me. Alex
Attachment:
pgpbczpe5JOTu.pgp
Description: PGP signature