| 1 |
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:02:53 -0500 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I'd prefer that transparency be done in an anonymous way. I'm fine |
| 5 |
> with the individuals being affected by a disciplinary action |
| 6 |
> voluntarily choosing to allow this information to be divulged. |
| 7 |
> However, if somebody is the subject of discipline they shouldn't be |
| 8 |
> turned into public examples for a few reasons: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Would a way for allowing such excluded members to set "away" flags, |
| 11 |
and have the status of those "away" flags being visible in the relevant |
| 12 |
channels be a suitable approach? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
That way its up to the individual to set it, but the visibility can be |
| 15 |
only binary, "away" or "present" ( much narrower than the dev-away system ) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That way the interpretation and definition of that state is up to individuals, |
| 18 |
and people who are given "you're banned" notices can be simply reminded that they |
| 19 |
can change this flag if they want to. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That would at least solve the "user is unaware that person can't/wont action on bugzilla" |
| 22 |
side of the problem. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
You could allow it to be freeform, but I see that as too much a temptation as |
| 25 |
a further venue to be abusive. |
Archives