[OpenID board] [OpenID] On the banning of Santosh

David Recordon recordond at gmail.com
Sun Nov 29 21:08:19 UTC 2009


I agree that we should write up policies/rules/guidelines for the OpenID
mailing lists.  Chris Messina started a thread about doing so (
http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/2009-November/004399.html) a
few days ago which I support!

Even if they were never written down, we all know what is and is not
appropriate behavior on this sort of mailing list and face to face at events
like IIW.  Flaming people and personal insults have no place on this list or
within this community.

http://microformats.org/mailinglists-policies is a pretty good policy which
we could just adopt.

--David

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:

>
>
> David Recordon wrote:
>
>> It's not like Santosh acting in this manner just started yesterday.
>>
>
>
> Frequently, the importance of proper procedure is for those doing the
> enforcement, not for those on the receiving end of it.  So in a very basic
> way, it does not matter what his history has been.  What matters is the
> history of the list's management.
>
> The list has had no rules.  The list has had no history of enforcement.
>
> By definition, therefore, any immediate decision to banish someone is
> capricious,made more so by being an individual's decision.  It does not
> matter whether you or I or anyone else happen to agree (or disagree) that
> the banished participant went too far.  What matters is that there were no
> established criteria and procedures for taking action against them.
>
> Perhaps my understand of this list is wrong and it really is meant to
> function at the whimsy of one or a few individuals.  There's nothing wrong
> with such lists -- as long as participants understand the model.  But I have
> had the impression that this is meant to function more as a "community"
> list.  If it is, then it requires community rules.
>
> Were the individual's actions causing what the US Supreme Court called
> "clear and present danger", then it's fine to do whatever is necessary to
> remove the threat.
>
> But of course, that's not the issue here.  Distracting, yes.  Dangerous,
> no.
>
> Due process requires first establishing the process.
>
> Only after that can the process be applied.
>
> d/
> --
>
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20091129/6caf0943/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the board mailing list