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 <email@example.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 Chris.Knadle@coredump.us
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.