To provide a face-to-face example of how banning can work without
a formal written policy, I been in the leadership of a social gaming
organization with chapters in various places. Our local group typically
has 30-40 people show up at events and over the 30+ years of our
existence, we've had multiple hundreds of different people participate.
Those numbers somewhat match the number of active participants on
this mailing list (to an order of magnitude at least).
Like participants of this mailing list, we discourage disagreeable
behavior because we lose participants if a few people make it
unpleasant for the rest of us. When someone goes over the line,
we (one or more people in the leadership) takes them aside (privately
if possible) and politely point out their behavior is not
doing them or the group any favors. If they seem to understand
and agree to do better, that can be the end of it. Some people
may need guidance more than once, but good intentions count.
There have been a very small number of attendees to our group who's
behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. I can think of only
three specific cases in the last 15 years. In each case, there was a
broad consensus that the group would be better off without them.
There have been many more cases where someone started going over the
line but pulled back when corrected. With positive intervention, their
behavior was modified and they continued in the group.
I believe the same approach could work here. When someone goes over
the line, a respected leader with a talent for calming things down
could suggest to them privately that perhaps they might tone it down
to a more appropriate level of discourse. There is a skill to calming
done tempers and not everyone has the right talents for that, but the
right intervention can help.
While I have been irritated at some of the emails, I have not seen
behavior that is severe enough to build a broad consensus for banning.
To be very clear, I am not complaining about what position anyone
has taken, only about when they present their point of view
in a hostile or offensive way or presume the opposing point
of view represents the face of evil. Hostility does not tend to
change anyone's mind.
I don't believe a formal policy is necessary. It should be
clear when someone is way over the line and cannot accept
counseling and guidance. At that point, the steering committee
can give warning and finally take the necessary action.
- Patrick McGehearty
On 4/14/2021 4:24 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
On 4/14/2021 2:39 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:08 AM Jeff Law via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
wrote:
once or twice when physical violence with threatened, but that's about
it (aside from spammers). I don't think we want to get too deep into
moderation and the like -- IMHO it should be an extremely rare event.
As much as I disagree with some of the comments that have been made I
don't think they've risen to the level of wanting/needing to ban those
individuals from posting.
I think it's useful to observe that there are a reasonable number of
people who will refuse to participate in a project in which the
mailing list has regular personal attacks and other kinds of abusive
behavior. I know this because I've spoken with such people myself.
They simply say "that project is not for me" and move on.
So we don't get the choice between "everyone is welcome" and "some
people are kicked off the list." We get the choice between "some
people decline to participate because it is unpleasant" and "some
people are kicked off the list."
Given the choice of which group of people are going to participate and
which group are not, which group do we want?
(I'm raising this as a kind of first principle. If there is a system
for banning people from the list, there are various things to discuss
as to how that might work. And I've seen it work effectively in other
communities. But if we don't agree on that first principle, there is
no point to continuing.)
It's been a long time, but I think when we've banned someone it's been
through the steering committee.
But yes, I understand your point and it's a good one and I think we
can probably find some common ground there -- but even so I think
banning should be a rare event and some official outreach to the
offender should happen first.
jeff
