Hello All, Thanks to everyone for sharing their input so far. Please do send me your thoughts directly and let's keep it off the list at this point. The board will be discussing on our next board call this week and come up with a fair and consistent policy for all our lists.
Cheers, Brian ___________ Brian Kissel CEO, JanRain - WebID and Social Publishing for User Engagement Email: [email protected] Cell: 503.866.4424 Fax: 503.296.5502 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Bradley Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 7:01 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; general General Subject: Re: [OpenID] On the banning of Santosh I was offline for most of yesterday so it may take me some time to catch up on this thread. Because the list has no policy I expressed my concerns about inappropriate comments directly to Santosh. Escalating things further on the list was not appropriate for me to engage in. I understand why David felt he should act. I believe his intentions were good. However I think the issue should be dealt with by the board and not a single individual. I contacted the Foundation ED and Chair asking that the issue of moderation on the list be dealt with at there earliest opportunity. I recommend contacting Brian Kissel <[email protected]> directly if you have input on the issue. It would be unfortunate if the debate on list policy turns out to be more distracting than the original problem. Regards John B. On 2009-11-29, at 6:01 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > David Recordon wrote: >> It's not like Santosh acting in this manner just started yesterday. > > > Frequently, the importance of proper procedure is for those doing the > enforcement, not for those on the receiving end of it. So in a very basic > way, it does not matter what his history has been. What matters is the > history of the list's management. > > The list has had no rules. The list has had no history of enforcement. > > By definition, therefore, any immediate decision to banish someone is > capricious,made more so by being an individual's decision. It does not > matter whether you or I or anyone else happen to agree (or disagree) that the > banished participant went too far. What matters is that there were no > established criteria and procedures for taking action against them. > > Perhaps my understand of this list is wrong and it really is meant to > function at the whimsy of one or a few individuals. There's nothing wrong > with such lists -- as long as participants understand the model. But I have > had the impression that this is meant to function more as a "community" list. > If it is, then it requires community rules. > > Were the individual's actions causing what the US Supreme Court called "clear > and present danger", then it's fine to do whatever is necessary to remove the > threat. > > But of course, that's not the issue here. Distracting, yes. Dangerous, no. > > Due process requires first establishing the process. > > Only after that can the process be applied. > > d/ > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
