| 1 |
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 04:44:26PM +0100, Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 20/03/18 13:17, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Could someone please explain how this doesn't directly contradict the |
| 4 |
> > core tenets of an open and inclusive community? |
| 5 |
> It's fairly simple to produce a justification of the decision. I can |
| 6 |
> think of several ways of doing so. One is through an appeal to some |
| 7 |
> notion of community health improvement from impeding toxic contributors. |
| 8 |
> In this strategy, the argument would be something pertaining to how |
| 9 |
> allowing these toxic posters free rein on the mailing list would |
| 10 |
> contradict the core tenet of an open and inclusive community. There are |
| 11 |
> several more ways to rationalise the decision. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> But you won't buy into either of those purported vindications of this |
| 14 |
> decision. (I won't either.) So don't bother requesting them. Another |
| 15 |
> aimless (and thus endless) back and forth in Jackal language isn't |
| 16 |
> likely to achieve anything worthwhile beyond what the initial exchange |
| 17 |
> achieved. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
As the council member who voted against this decision, I am going to |
| 20 |
express my opinion, even though it will be unpopular with the majority of |
| 21 |
the council and probably others as well. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I do feel that this decision reflects badly on us as a community and |
| 24 |
should be reversed immediately. The proper way to deal with people who |
| 25 |
have bad behavior is to deal with them individually and not put a |
| 26 |
restriction on the community that is not necessary. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
William |
Archives