It's all very well having `rules', but this is IMO missing the real question.
If people on the mailing lists get to the point where they're calling each other names then something has gone wrong. Pointing one or both at the `rules' and banning them for a bit doesn't seem like a solution to the problem. A more productive approach would be to try to engage both sides, and/or try to get them to take it to email, or something - and to bring the discussion back to a technical or procedural level. Furthermore, I'm extremely concerned that any `rules' might be enforced vigorously and perhaps arbitrarily. I don't think that vigorous executive enforcement of a code of conduct is appropriate for these mailing lists. How about the following policy: * If someone feels aggrieved about the tone of a message _not_ aimed at them then they should post to say so, and the poster should be given the opportunity to explain themselves and/or apologise. As usual, one message saying any particular thing should be sufficient - there is no need for a storm of complaints. If you want to say `me too' then mail the participants privately. * If someone feels aggrieved about the tone of a message which _was_ aimed at them they should get someone else that they respect to have a word with the poster in private email; if email exchange doesn't settle it and it doesn't blow over then the question should perhaps be escalated to the next paragraph ... * If a particular person disrupts one or more mailing lists over an extended period or particular personality clashes develop then firmer measures may be taken such as formally asking the person to stop it, asking them not to respond directly or on a personal level to certain other people, or restricting their posting access. These actions should be discussed in advance. Ian.
