On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 22:02, Kevin Smith <kevin.sm...@isode.com> wrote:
> I think there’s an implied statement that actions are somehow more > significant than non-actions, but I think that’s probably not true. Actions > are a statement that the behaviour was unacceptable, non-actions are a > statement that the behaviour (or resolution to it in the ‘girls’ example) > is acceptable, which is probably just as potentially harmful. So I’d > suggest whatever is done for one is done for the other, in terms of checks > and balances. > Yes, that seems reasonable, with the note that as mentioned elsewhere, I am rather hoping that in most cases, the Conduct Team is getting minor issues that were sorted out on the spot, and thus has to do nothing. Where issues weren't sorted out on the spot, a timely informal approach seems best if possible. None of this should be taken to imply the conduct was acceptable. Dave.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
