Hi Mike, On 01/24, Mike Silber wrote: > [...] > > On 24 Jan 2022, at 11:35, Ben Maddison <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > If a sender's affiliation is not obvious (From: domain, signature, etc), > > then the chairs and/or moderators should challenge them to state it. > > Failure[*] to do so should: > > A) be an indication to the community (and particularly for the purposes > > to considering consensus) that any arguments presented should be > > viewed with great skepticism; and > > B) be a CoC violation, eventually resulting in a ban. > > I accept your point - but think it would be better served on > subscribing to the mailing list [or to retain your posting rights] > rather than on a challenge basis. One post escapes the challenge and > then there are claims of favouritism :-)
Yup, that also seems a reasonable approach that I could support. Assuming such a disclosure would be self asserted(?), that leaves some open questions: - How is that information provided to the reader of a message (perhaps auto inserting a link to a disclosure webpage at the foot of each message?) - How is the provided information maintained to prevent staleness when, e.g. a subscriber changes job, accepts a new consulting gig, gets elected to a board somewhere? - (Most stickily) to what extent is the provided disclosure verified, and by whom? This is hard enough in the case of positive assertions, and seems near-impossible in the case of omissions. - Probably others... Cheers, Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
