| 1 |
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Some questions have been raised about how the nfp list is moderated. |
| 5 |
> In that vein I propose the following. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> 1. Affirm that access to the nfp list is a privilege not a right, even |
| 8 |
> to Foundation members. |
| 9 |
> 2. Formally give comrel rights to moderate the list, pursuant to the |
| 10 |
> CoC. Moderate in this case means enact warnings/bans with reason given. |
| 11 |
> 2.1. The reason given needs to be public (not sure about this) |
| 12 |
> 2.2. Those having actions enacted against them are able to appeal to the |
| 13 |
> trustees. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
This by itself does not appear to be legal. You can't have some independent |
| 17 |
entity policing a mailing list run for Foundation member communication. |
| 18 |
There is no clear connection between Foundation and ComRel, no |
| 19 |
accountability of ComRel to the user community, etc, etc. This needs to be |
| 20 |
resolved first. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Second, I expect the Foundation to have means of discussion for Foundation |
| 23 |
members. In fact, it already does -- this list! Having a trustees@ alias is |
| 24 |
not enough. The Foundation is a *member* organization. The Foundation |
| 25 |
trustees are elected by members. The CoC is designed to be a standard of |
| 26 |
*developer* conduct, but not all members are developers. The -nfp list is |
| 27 |
clearly the official channel for communication regarding Foundation issues. |
| 28 |
Having ComRel control who can post to this list is clearly not OK. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Furthermore, "warnings/bans" are not an appropriate way to *moderate* a |
| 31 |
mailing list. We don't need a mailing list secret police that pounce |
| 32 |
through a door like the "Spanish Inquisition" Monty Python sketch. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-Daniel |
Archives