1 |
Hi, |
2 |
|
3 |
For clarity, I am tomaw, a member of freenode staff. For even more |
4 |
clarity, I am a member of OFTC staff, although that's not relevant to |
5 |
this posting. I have spent many hours discussing this issue with |
6 |
Chrissy and others and feel some points require clarification. |
7 |
|
8 |
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:39:41 -0700 |
9 |
"Chrissy Fullam" <musikc@g.o> wrote: |
10 |
|
11 |
> > Fair enough. Let me wrap up the IRC part. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > 1. I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our |
14 |
> > developer being banned from Freenode without providing us with a |
15 |
> > reason. The situation looks like one of Freenode staffers |
16 |
> > overreacted over something Chris said during previous Council |
17 |
> > meeting and banned him to prevent him from attending next meetings |
18 |
> > when he was supposed to provide more information on the CoC topic. |
19 |
> > The ban was removed after an hour, |
20 |
> |
21 |
> The ban was put in place on Sunday; the ban was lifted on Tuesday |
22 |
> evening = way longer than one hour. Chris tried to speak to Freenode |
23 |
> staff on Freenode but was told he was evading the ban and they would |
24 |
> not speak to him there. He had to find out from me what the email |
25 |
|
26 |
I have previously indicated on IRC that the omission of the email |
27 |
address to respond to with questions about klines in this kline message |
28 |
was a mistake. He did not have to find out which email address to use |
29 |
from you. I told him myself. I am quite upset that you did not feel it |
30 |
prudent to indicate that we admit this mistake in your email. |
31 |
|
32 |
> address was (as it's not documented on Freenode's site) and email |
33 |
> them to ask why he was banned. Christel responded later that day and |
34 |
> simply apologized and removed the ban. Chris again emailed to ask |
35 |
> *why* he was banned but Freenode staff has ignored his second email |
36 |
> requesting information about his own ban. |
37 |
|
38 |
I responded personally to this request. I did consider writing |
39 |
another response earlier today asking for more time due to staff |
40 |
availability but decided doing so was overly verbose. If your personal |
41 |
knowledge of the person in question indicates that he prefers more |
42 |
verbose interaction please have him convey this to us and I will be |
43 |
happy to help. |
44 |
|
45 |
> To me it looks like they |
46 |
> not only will not tell us, they will not tell the individual who was |
47 |
> actually banned and that is in poor professional taste and only |
48 |
> further serves to drive a wedge between our ability to work with |
49 |
> Freenode. |
50 |
|
51 |
freenode can currently only discuss this with the person banned due to |
52 |
legal issues. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect much of what fmccor |
53 |
said to be true. |
54 |
|
55 |
> > 2. I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where |
56 |
> > third parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who can't. |
57 |
> |
58 |
> This is an interesting idea. Perhaps a good trial for a transition? |
59 |
> |
60 |
> > 3. I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org |
61 |
> > alias instead of irc.freenode.net in our docs, news items and so |
62 |
> > on. |
63 |
> |
64 |
> Seems pretty logical so I just want to say that I like this whoever |
65 |
> came up with this. :) |
66 |
|
67 |
This seems sensible. |
68 |
|
69 |
Thanks, |
70 |
|
71 |
-- |
72 |
Tom Wesley <tom@×××××.net> |