Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
----- "Ian Jackson" <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> This isn't really true IMO. Someone who is banned can always send a
> message privately to a sympathetic contributor, who can forward it if
> it seems relevant or interesting. (I have in fact done this for a
> contributor who was under some kind of cloud, when they had a
> relevant and constructive contribution to make.)
I have seen this used in years past and its seems to underscore the
"second class" status of the person involved rather than relieve it.
This is, of course, my opinion.
> I disagree. I don't think that making these processes heavyweight is
> a good idea. I have had very poor experiences with "policy-driven"
> processes of this kind.
I agree. No one likes red tape. I don't think basic record keeping
has to be heavy weight. A ban is an infrequent event and is regarded
seriously. A process just slightly less onerous than a kernel commit
does not seem like too much to ask.
> I get the impression from your mail that you would vote against the
> CoC in its current form. That's your prerogative, of course. Do you
> intend to draft a counterproposal and if so how long do you expect
> that process to take ? The CoC in its current form has been
> extensively discussed on -project already, of course.
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.
It does not seem unreasonable to me that if a developer is curious about
why another developer was banned that they should be able to find out
what messages provoked the ban, when a warning was issued, who
implemented the ban and why (briefly) the band was warranted. This
could be as simple as the listmaster forwarding a couple
of signed messages to a procmail script.
I would be willing to help modify the necessary scripts.
The current procmail rules do not contain documentation about the
messages that provoked the ban. Ironically it is currently easier to find
out who has been banned than it is to find out why.
ps. I will also be working on an automated sarcasm detector which may or
may not be helpful in streamlining the ban workflow.
Reply to: