| 1 |
On 20/03/18 13:17, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 2 |
> Could someone please explain how this doesn't directly contradict the |
| 3 |
> core tenets of an open and inclusive community? |
| 4 |
It's fairly simple to produce a justification of the decision. I can |
| 5 |
think of several ways of doing so. One is through an appeal to some |
| 6 |
notion of community health improvement from impeding toxic contributors. |
| 7 |
In this strategy, the argument would be something pertaining to how |
| 8 |
allowing these toxic posters free rein on the mailing list would |
| 9 |
contradict the core tenet of an open and inclusive community. There are |
| 10 |
several more ways to rationalise the decision. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
But you won't buy into either of those purported vindications of this |
| 13 |
decision. (I won't either.) So don't bother requesting them. Another |
| 14 |
aimless (and thus endless) back and forth in Jackal language isn't |
| 15 |
likely to achieve anything worthwhile beyond what the initial exchange |
| 16 |
achieved. |
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Alexander |
| 19 |
bernalex@g.o |
| 20 |
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander |
Archives