| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Rich Freeman <rich@××××××××××××××.net> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> I think another issue to keep in mind that people who are dismissed |
| 7 |
>> from Gentoo have essentially zero recourse |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Should it be this way? Or are you only talking about legal issues? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
To clarify, I was talking purely about legal issues, with the caveats |
| 12 |
in the remainder of that sentence. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Beyond appealing to Council, if somebody changes their ways they can |
| 15 |
always re-apply to join. Obviously these applications get scrutiny. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
>> However, Gentoo can be sued for letting somebody use |
| 18 |
>> our communications media to perform tortious activities. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I think this would at a minimum require infra to be negligent in some way |
| 21 |
> first. Hosts and sites are generally not resonsible for the actions of |
| 22 |
> their users, especially when those users are trespassers or hackers. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
You need to exercise reasonable care. If we ban somebody, and they |
| 25 |
show up under an alias and they get off some tortious comments before |
| 26 |
they're banned again, I doubt any court would hold Gentoo responsible. |
| 27 |
On the other hand if we know somebody is a problem and do nothing |
| 28 |
about it, that is a different situation, and that was the point I was |
| 29 |
making. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
And beyond legal responsibility it is horrible for our reputation. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives