I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context, rather than in the abstract?
I share your unease. But deciding to situations in context without a set of guidelines is simply another kind of policy. I'm actually more uneasy about ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon way to handle it.
I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems there is still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what type of behavior it is meant to prevent.
I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub issues and resolve them before we vote. Whatever issues can't get resolved end up in a branch/fork. In the end, we vote on each of the forks, or "no policy at all".
Does that sound reasonable? -- Shaun Ellis User Interace Developer, Digital Initiatives Princeton University Library
