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

Re: GR proposal: code of conduct

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 21:39:47 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Chris Knadle <Chris.Knadle@coredump.us> writes:
> > On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> 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 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.

Oh.  ;-)  Okay cool.  Sorry for the confusion.

  -- Chris

Chris Knadle

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: