Chris Knadle <[email protected]> writes: > On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 16:27:52 Russ Allbery wrote: >> Ean Schuessler <[email protected]> writes:
>>> I am actually for the CoC. My complaint is that the GR does not >>> require a record keeping process. I actually agree with Steve that we >>> should not be concerned about publicly advertising the bans. A ban >>> should have been proceeded by a warning and should be reasonable and >>> clear-cut given the circumstances. By the time a ban is issued it >>> should have been fairly obvious that the recipient effectively "signed >>> on the dotted line" for it. >> Personally, I would much rather just let the listmasters decide how to >> handle it. I certainly don't think a blanket requirement for a warning >> is necessary, and would much rather let someone make a judgement call. >> The person who started posting physical threats in response to the >> recent TC decision, and who had never participated in the project >> previously, didn't need a warning. > The CoC takes into account "having a bad day", and instead specifically > focuses on "serious or persistent offenders". (i.e. one-time verbiage > that isn't to be taken seriously is not what the CoC is about.) Ack, sorry, I see that you took my reply as being about the CoC. I was intending to specifically address Ean's request that we have a more formal process with required warnings and record-keeping and so forth. I have no problems with the CoC as proposed. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
