❦ 4 mars 2017 23:04 GMT, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> :
>> > This was not about isolated mistakes. We've all made those. I do >> > not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details. I do think it >> > is worth mentioning that since he's back in the team it wasn't without >> > limit. >> >> He's back in the team because he has asked/begged a TC member to mediate >> the issue during last Debconf. The ban has been done privately, so I >> don't know if a time limit was provided. In a message, you speak of a >> "short break". It was almost a year. > > I don't recall having said short. I don't know why I would have said that > since I didn't remember how long it ended up being. You said it here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2015/09/msg00174.html I don't say that this should be seen as an official statement. I just say that this was a clue that the ban should have been relatively short. > In my opinion, time limits are for children's punishments. I don't think > adults need a time out for a lesson. Bans should only be imposed if you are > convinced the situation is not salvageable. That does not mean, however, > that > new information can't make it reasonable to revisit the decision and change > it > as was done here. Most punishments have an upper bound (prison sentences have them except for the most exceptional ones). Maybe people would have protested more if they knew that the ban was for one year or longer. This is also an objective metric to be reintegrated in the team. Even complete strangers to the project have a time limit when they are banned from the mailing lists. They are not asked to beg. They are not asked to play extra nice. Just to wait without causing more trouble. I am a bit puzzled that you think how the ban was handled is OK. This won't affect me much as my investment in the team is already quite minimal. -- Small things make base men proud. -- William Shakespeare, "Henry VI"
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
