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