[OpenID] On the banning of Santosh

[DeWitt Clinton]

David,

Regarding the your first point, Santosh called someone here "a stupid,
idiotic, prejudiced human being."  An unprovoked attack, and just the latest
incident in a long, long pattern of similar slurs.

If we're going to tolerate that behavior here, I'll take my time and
attention elsewhere.

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.

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.

-DeWitt

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM, David Fuelling <sappenin at gmail.com> wrote:

> David,
>
> I strongly disagree with your banning of Santosh, if even only for 30
> days.  Here's why:
>
>
>    1. 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?
>
>    2. 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
>    "signal".
>
>    3. 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.
>
>    4. 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).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David Fuelling
> sappenin at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:06 PM, David Recordon <recordond at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> --David
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20091129/e32c6a2f/attachment-0001.htm>