Re: CoC / procedural abuse
Mason Loring Bliss <mason@blisses.org> writes:
> It just strikes me that we can do better, and I'd like to see us do so.
Personally, I think everything you've proposed so far would be doing worse
than what we're doing now in terms of the desired outcome here, which is
to keep our mailing lists useful, productive project resources and places
where we can accomplish our goals. The Debian project mailing lists are
not free speech or public debate forums, nor are they the place to try to
make one's point by trolling with juvenile sexual references.
Given the messages that Zenaan subsequently bcc'd to my personal inbox,
I'm quite confident that the listmasters made the right decision in this
case.
> I value Debian as the most relevant vehicle for distributing and
> promoting free software in existence by a very wide margin. The
> community already values many important things and acts to do the right
> thing in most cases. One place where we fall down is in our application
> of force.
Preventing someone from sending mail to a project mailing list is not
"force" by any sensible definition of the word. It's a rather mild action
with little impact on someone's life, particularly if that person is not
actively involved in Debian development. Given that, I think we should be
optimizing for lightweight process and useful mailing lists instead of
some sort of full-blown judicial inquiry.
As I've mentioned in previous discussions of this topic, I'm quite
comfortable with the thought that lightweight process means that I could
get banned for an ill-conceived message even though I *am* actively
involved in Debian development. I would happily wait out the ban period
while using it as an opportunity to reflect on what I said and why people
found it sufficiently irritating to complain about it and for the
listmasters to agree. I certainly don't think some sort of complex public
process should be involved. The current approach seems far superior.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: