Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Ean Schuessler <ean@brainfood.com> 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 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.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: