| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Wulf C. Krueger <wk@×××××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> out of curiosity: The (old or new) CoC is not to blame, the proctors |
| 4 |
> were not to blame (you wrote that in another email in this thread) and, |
| 5 |
> so, basically all you want to change is |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> updat[ing] the enforcement section to point to Comrel instead of |
| 8 |
>> Proctors [...] |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If that's so, you're exchanging people (who were not to blame in the |
| 11 |
> first place) and expect what exactly to, uh, change? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Or to pose the question differently: Why will this attempt succeed |
| 14 |
> where the first one failed? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Maybe my email wasn't clear - I don't expect it to succeed and am |
| 17 |
questioning why we're doing this... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I expect that revising the old CoC will not change anything, except |
| 20 |
perhaps to remove some outdated bits. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I expect that the newly proposed Coc will not change anything. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If we want to spend time tweaking the CoC doing the former involves |
| 25 |
less effort. I'm not really a proponent of doing either, but if we |
| 26 |
want a new CoC I think at the very least somebody needs to explain |
| 27 |
what it will accomplish. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
What will change things is the willingness to actually enforce the |
| 30 |
CoC. Markos has communicated that he intends to do just that, and for |
| 31 |
my part on the Council (the court of appeal) I certainly will do what |
| 32 |
I can to back him up. That isn't to say that I won't fairly evaluate |
| 33 |
appeals, but I'm not going to second-guess every little temporary list |
| 34 |
ban. I don't think our policies are the problem - I suspect the |
| 35 |
original CoC would actually have done a lot of good if the Proctors |
| 36 |
had been allowed to do their job. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Rich |
Archives