1 |
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2020, desultory wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>> Rationale: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>> * provides zero value to the distribution |
6 |
> Which has been shown to be false. |
7 |
|
8 |
Which still leaves both a positive or negative value as possibilities. |
9 |
|
10 |
> Given the precedent set by multiple council members, yourself |
11 |
> included, in the discussion of this very topic on the core mailing |
12 |
> list, the code of conduct does not apply to any medium which is not |
13 |
> visible to the public at large. Thus, given the council decision to |
14 |
> restrict public visibility of Off the Wall, there are definitionally |
15 |
> no code of conduct concerns there. |
16 |
|
17 |
Last time I checked, the forums (including OTW) were open for anyone to |
18 |
register, which makes them public communication media. So the Code of |
19 |
Conduct applies. |
20 |
|
21 |
(This is quite similar to mailing lists, where you won't receive any |
22 |
messages unless you register. Still, we consider the mailing lists to be |
23 |
public media.) |
24 |
|
25 |
> Then again, given how strictly council members have been adhering to |
26 |
> the code of conduct in this public discussion, one could make the |
27 |
> argument that the code of conduct is itself null and void. Which would |
28 |
> again imply that there would be no call for the council to take the |
29 |
> action you propose. Though it would further imply that there is no |
30 |
> reason for Off the Wall to be subject to restricted access. |
31 |
|
32 |
Non sequitur. |
33 |
|
34 |
Ulrich |