Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2019-07-21

[Raymond Jennings]

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 4:26 AM Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 08:28:39 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 2019-07-21 at 02:48 +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > > On Sun, 07 Jul 2019 23:00:01 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > My second agenda item is: removing posting restrictions from
> gentoo-dev
> > > > mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > I was on the Council that made those changes, and from retrospective
> I
> > > > believe the decision to be a mistake.  It was made to workaround
> > > > a problem with inefficiency of ComRel, and we should have focused
> > > > on fixing ComRel instead.  I don't believe it serves its purpose well
> > > > and IMO it causes more problems than it solves.
> > >
> > > We had the problem of the lists becoming unusable. Since person
> > > involved actively avoided bans, the only working technical mean
> > > available was to whitelist the gentoo-dev mail list. Other
> > > technical means like targeted banning apparently have had failed.
> >
> > For the record, this is oversimplfying.  The main reason why the person
> > in question has bypassed the ban is because ComRel failed to deliver
> > a professional notice about the ban, and therefore provoked him to
> > publish it.  Not saying it's justified or appropriate, saying it might
> > not have happened if we did things right.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any case of deliberate repeated ban evasions that
> > required explicit action in the past.  Are you?
>
> The person in question was banned many times and each time
> registered new e-mail and continued a flame. This is what is called
> the ban evasion and the only practical way to stop this is the
> white list.
>

This is also a case in point for the principle I was advancing.  If true,
said person was blatantly trespassing on a list he knew damn well he was
not welcome to post on, and just by breaching the ban he committed an
offense completely separate from the one that got him banned in the first
place.

In the real world, this would be akin to violating a restraining order,
which in my state is a crime you get put in jail for, and in aggravated
cases it is even a felony.

Bringing that example back to the context of the mailing list, are there
stronger measures that can be taken besides just banning him or
whitelisting the list (which causes collateral inconvenience to innocent
bystanders)?

Some say that the best defense is a good offense, and in my opinion,
stronger measures that can target and punish the trespasser directly and
that avoid collateral inconveniences to innocent bystanders would be better.

My opinion is that the consequences should escalate somehow, not unlike how
in the real world, blatantly defying a consequence is punishable with an
escalation to more serious consequences, and this principle applies in more
contexts than criminal justice.

For one example, breaking the rules in a bar will get the bouncer tossing
you out and banning you.  Going back however will get the police summoned
to arrest you for trespassing.  After that, you getting banned from the bar
is going to be the least of your worries, because now you have a rap sheet.

The bouncer isn't going to just keep repeatedly throwing you out.  You get
thrown out ONCE, after that the bouncer is justified in escalating.  On the
side, once the police show up the situation changes, and you WILL be
leaving the bar whether you like it or not, and point of fact if you even
fight the situation things will escalate even further.  If the police have
to remove you from the bar by force you will be charged with trespassing,
and you may also get an added charge of resisting arrest.  Outright
fighting the police will get you tased and then charged with assaulting an
officer which is a felony.  The point being that, at every point, defying
consequences results in escalations that bring more severe consequences.

For another example, if you get suspended without pay by your boss at work
because you did something wrong, you serve the suspension and either go
through proper channels to appeal or leave well enough alone.  If you defy
your suspension and clock in anyway you're probably going to get a big fat
pink slip for insubordination because at that point you deliberately
disobeyed a direct order.

I think that the trespassing on a list that he's been banned from should be
itself treated as a serious offense, and a separate offense from the one
that he was originally banned for, and I would hope that there's likewise
ways to escalate against mailing list ban evasion in ways that don't cause
collateral inconvenience for other users of that list.


> Best regards,
> Andrew Savchenko
>