1 |
Top posting because it's brief. |
2 |
|
3 |
This reflects my own views pretty much exactly, and states them better |
4 |
than I've been able to. So I'll try to refrain from posting further. |
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 21:20 +0200, Tobias Scherbaum wrote: |
8 |
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
9 |
> > Can people be entirely banned from Gentoo? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> At least from a technical pov I tend to say "no". Implementing a |
12 |
> "feature" we (as in Gentoo) cannot technically enforce is useless, as |
13 |
> enforcing it would require lots of manpower and manual interaction which |
14 |
> we need more urgently in lots of other areas of Gentoo. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> > - What would such a ban include? Some ideas -- the person could not: |
17 |
> > - Post to any gentoo mailing list; |
18 |
> > - Post to gentoo bugzilla; |
19 |
> > - Participate in #gentoo- IRC channels; |
20 |
> > - Contribute to gentoo (hence my corner case of a security fix) except |
21 |
> > perhaps through a proxy; |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > - Why would we do it? |
24 |
> |
25 |
> don't know, I don't see the need. People play wanker on #gentoo -> they |
26 |
> get banned from that channel. People play wanker in the forums -> they |
27 |
> get a warning and finally their account will get locked. I think these |
28 |
> mechanisms are quite effective and proved to be good (tm), creating a |
29 |
> next step of a "full Gentoo ban" isn't needed (nor doable) from my pov. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> > - Under whose authority would it happen? |
32 |
> |
33 |
> As people who would be banned are no developers any more this clearly |
34 |
> falls under Userrels authority. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> > - Would it be reversible? What conditions would cause this? |
37 |
> |
38 |
> It needs to be reversible, people change, their attitude changes. |
39 |
> Therefore we would need to implement a process which allows every banned |
40 |
> user (after a fixed timeframe following the ban) to let userrel re-check |
41 |
> the ban. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> > Since the banned person couldn't participate in Gentoo, we'd never |
44 |
> > know whether anything changed. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> They could still talk to people on IRC or via mail - or request to |
47 |
> re-check if their ban is still necessary or if they deserve a second |
48 |
> chance as described above. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> > - How would one appeal this? Would there be a chance to respond before |
51 |
> > the ban? |
52 |
> |
53 |
> As such a ban would require fast intervention to just stop people |
54 |
> playing wankers we would need to have different steps of bans, temporary |
55 |
> bans followed by a longer ban and permanent bans as the last resort. |
56 |
> Having several steps (i.e. short bans for a few days or a week at last) |
57 |
> before someone gets banned permanently there's no need to be able to |
58 |
> appeal these decisions - except a permanent ban would require such a |
59 |
> process being in place. |
60 |
> |
61 |
> > - Would moderating the gentoo-dev mailing list obsolete this concept? |
62 |
> |
63 |
> It wouldn't obsolete this concept, but for now I see no need to ban |
64 |
> people from interacting with our (developer) community - besides that I |
65 |
> question if such a ban would be technically doable. |
66 |
> As we had the most problems with our dev-ml in the past (and we have |
67 |
> other working mechanisms like operators on #gentoo or mods in forums |
68 |
> already in place) putting the ml on moderation would help and *might* |
69 |
> obsolete the need for bans if the implementation works and will be |
70 |
> accepted. |
71 |
> |
72 |
> Tobias |
73 |
|
74 |
Regards, |
75 |
Ferris |
76 |
-- |
77 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
78 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |