[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: CoC / procedural abuse

On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 10:02:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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.

I've seen you make this point before (regarding what if you were banned
yourself) and found myself agreeing with it. However it does presume some
statute of limitation on ban length. Don's message earlier in this thread does
not indicate any particular ban length in this particular case. It's not clear
to me whether this is an indefinite ban, or one subject to review, and in the
latter case, whether the ban period is deliberately non-disclosed (and I can
see the reasoning for that too, if that's the case, but I don't know that it

Jonathan Dowland

Reply to: