On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <beh...@behdad.org> wrote:

> To make the discussion more practical, lets take one real incident of the
> past:  Murray's blog re Jeff.  It did not include vulgar language.  It did
> include exaggerations that turned into libel.  Now how does any proposed
> solution deal with that?

> I like specific answer to "how would your proposed solution would address
> this past incident, if it happened again?" from anyone proposing a solution.

Action: Jeff refers his complaint to the membership committee, MC agrees it
was out of bounds, and sends a warning to Murray (first offence).

End result: Jeff feels vindicated in his belief that he was wronged and is
feels that any further attacks are unlikely as the Foundation (via MC) makes
it clear, publicly, that this attack was out of bounds and that any further
attack of that time will result in actual suspension of privileges.

How does this not improve on what we have now?
foundation-list mailing list

Reply via email to