* Karsten Merker: " Re: Question for Planet Admins: What Should I do if another
Developer Removes my Blog" (Sat, 25 May 2019 17:49:13 +0200):
Hi together,
I am supporting wholeheartedly the view of Carsten with some small amendments.
> a) As the general rule DDs who are not part of planet admin
> should IMHO never forcibly remove somebody else's feed from
> planet on their own. The planet admins run the service and
> whether a feed gets removed from planet is solely their
> decision (of course subject to a possible override by the
> means defined in our constitution).
>
> b) The only case where I would consider a forced removal of
> somebody else's feed by somebody who is not part of planet
> admin to be justified would be if the further inclusion of the
> feed on planet would constitute a criminal offence in the
> jurisdiction where the webserver that serves planet.debian.org
> is located, and in this case that would have to be clearly
> stated by the person performing the removal.
It may go without saying (but explicit is better than implicit):
Such a procedure should only be justified in emergency cases that require
immediate action and if no planet admin is available in due time. And of course
it should be confirmed/reverted ASAP by the planet admins.
> c) The onus of proof that there are sufficient reasons to remove
> somebody else's feed and the onus of going through the
> procedure of contacting the planet admins and convincing them
> to take action clearly has to be on the person who wants other
> people's content removed, and not the other way around.
I would wish a documentation of the reasons in the best possible transparent
way. I know other people expressed their reservation to not create some impact
on the public image of the blocked feedowner by communicating too many details,
but there is also the interest of the project and its members to know as
exactly as possible about the reasons. Finally we all (can) know and be
aware about such implications when we join Debian and that we will be acting
(and perhaps be subject of evaluation) in the public.
> While the feedowner in question should of course consider other
> people's views on the feed's contents, as a consequence of the
> previous points, restoring the feed would IMHO be a legitimate
> action unless either the issue is covered by point b) or the
> planet admins have taken a decision against further inclusion of
> the feed on planet and have already communicated this decision to
> the feedowner.
Cheers,
Mathias
--
Mathias Behrle ✧ Debian Developer
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6
