Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Chris Knadle <Chris.Knadle@coredump.us> writes:
> On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Ean Schuessler <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 CoC takes into account "having a bad day", and instead specifically
> focuses on "serious or persistent offenders". (i.e. one-time verbiage
> that isn't to be taken seriously is not what the CoC is about.)
Ack, sorry, I see that you took my reply as being about the CoC. I was
intending to specifically address Ean's request that we have a more formal
process with required warnings and record-keeping and so forth.
I have no problems with the CoC as proposed.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>