[OpenID board] [OpenID] On the banning of Santosh
recordond at gmail.com
Sun Nov 29 20:42:32 UTC 2009
It's not like Santosh acting in this manner just started yesterday.
I mean take a look at this post from October
ends with, "If 'NOT' all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
Idiots!!!!" Or how about this post (
from September where he says, "Thats when you realize what a bunch of idiots
the XRI TC is made of."
This isn't the sort of behavior which is appropriate when collaborating and
certainly isn't a mailing list which I would be interested in participating
For the past six months I've both replied publicly on these lists and
privately to Santosh trying to explain that while he often makes good
points, his demeanor is not always appropriate.
Even four days ago when he simply replied to a thread with "HOGWASH" (
I tried to point him in the correct direction (
In October I both explained that his XRD and WebFinger anger was
misdirected within the OpenID community (
and clearly told him that his tone was once again inappropriate (
Given this ongoing history and no signs of change, it was fully appropriate
to give him a cooling off period and try to wrangle this list back into
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM, John Kemp <john at jkemp.net> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2009, at 2:43 PM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
>> This has absolutely nothing to do with the points Santosh is trying to
>> make (some of which I actually enjoy reading). It has everything to do with
>> creating an environment in which people can collaborate successfully.
> When people shout or are rude, it is often because they feel that their
> point (which they might have tried to make repeatedly) is not being heard.
> Sometimes the point is not heard because it is not explained in terms that
> the listener(s) can sufficiently understand. And sometimes the point is not
> heard because the listener is not listening hard enough. And often there's a
> combination of these problems. Communication is always conducted between two
> or more people, and if it doesn't work, any blame is shared by all the
> participants, however much those participants will say that they are being
> clear, or listening carefully. Getting to a shared understanding of an issue
> is a real art - and even more so when people can't see each other.
>> Thank you to David Recordon for actually doing something and not just
>> turning a blind eye to inappropriate behavior. If people insulted each
>> other this way at a conference or in a meeting they'd be asked to leave
>> until they cooled off (or more likely, asked not to return at all). We
>> shouldn't condone equally disruptive conduct here just because we're online.
> The most effective way to deprive someone of their ability to make their
> point is to ignore them when they are not "on topic", not to deprive them of
> their ability to make their point, which often simply results in more
> - johnk
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM, David Fuelling <sappenin at gmail.com>
>> I strongly disagree with your banning of Santosh, if even only for 30
>> days. Here's why:
>> • Santosh's "offenses" may seem [insert negative adjective here],
>> but they don't warrant a ban. Some people construed his remarks a
>> "disrespectful", but this is a relative term. If Santosh feels some people
>> are stupid, I believe he should be free to voice that opinion. The person
>> being called stupid is free to disagree or ignore. Are we really so
>> thin-skinned that we can't handle somebody describing us with a term that we
>> don't like?
>> • This sets a dangerous precedent. Because a few people chirped in
>> and said they wanted him gone (and you happened to agree), he's now gone? I
>> respect all of the work you've put into OpenID (especially like setting up
>> these lists), but I don't think that people should be banned for trying to
>> defend themselves, even if it's in an ungraceful way. I do think that there
>> should be a clear OIDF policy here (for things like spam), but in general I
>> would argue for a policy of freedom -- let people say what they will, no
>> matter how "disrespectful" because one person's "noise" is another person's
>> • Politeness as a bar for list participation is a bad idea -- the
>> whole idea of politeness is murky, and sometimes being polite discourages
>> technical debate. Besides, who of use should be the one defining what is
>> polite and what is not? I would argue nobody should be given that
>> responsibility nor that authority.
>> • Finally, what of the people on this list who have responded to
>> Santosh by calling him a variety of names, including "disrespectful"?
>> Should they not be banned as well, for isn't it "disrespectful" to call
>> somebody "disrespectful"?
>> I respectfully request that you un-ban Santosh from this list immediately
>> so we can put this episode behind us. If there are those on this list who
>> do not like what Santosh has to say, then they are free to ignore his words
>> (though to my above points, I haven't seen much of this happening lately).
>> David Fuelling
>> sappenin at gmail.com
>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:06 PM, David Recordon <recordond at gmail.com>
>> Having been one of the creators of this list, I've banned Santosh and will
>> remove that ban in 30 days. Santosh, many people – myself included – have
>> very politely asked you to think about your postings within this community
>> and to be more respectful. Obviously you've continued to ignore us.
>> John, MarkMail has a bunch of awesome analysis tools for many different
>> open source mailing lists. http://markmail.org/search/?q=openid
>> general mailing list
>> general at lists.openid.net
>> general mailing list
>> general at lists.openid.net
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openid.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the board