[OpenID] Re: On the banning of Santosh

[SitG Admin]

I'm starting to sense a pattern here . . . in hopes of forestalling 
the continuation of that pattern, which I see as one extremist 
approach leading to escalation (as we can see here, with perspectives 
from the opposite end of a spectrum being put forth), I will quote 
some excerpts from all the messages (in this last week) that 
expressed a desire, one way or another, about banning. Please note 
how few people openly asked for a straight-out ban, and how many 
expressed their approval of a warning first.

-Shade

At 6:44 AM -0800 11/27/09, Andrew Arnott wrote:
Ok, Santosh, you've crossed the line one too many times.  The fact 
that you were offended by that statistical analysis does not warrant 
such explicitly offensive attacks on the sender.  You've offended 
many people many times on this list, and I for one would like to see 
you banned.

At 9:08 AM -0800 11/27/09, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I strongly suggest a zero tolerance policy, with an escalating 
banishment rule, starting with a one-month suspension from the list.

Obviously, such a policy should not be enforced on behaviors 
occurring prior to its establishment.  Participants need to first be 
put on notice.

At 9:32 AM -0800 11/27/09, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
I'd support a 30-day cooling off period in this case.

At 11:45 AM -0700 11/27/09, SitG Admin wrote:
Politics: board members are up for re-election soon, and Santosh 
obviously desires to influence the outcome of these events. Timing: 
it wouldn't look good for banning his participation, though it 
shouldn't reflect *poorly* either since the words would be punished 
for were not necessary to the points he was making.

At 5:00 PM -0500 11/27/09, Rabbit wrote:
>  I strongly suggest a zero tolerance policy, with an escalating 
>banishment rule, starting with a one-month suspension from the list.
>
>  Obviously, such a policy should not be enforced on behaviors 
>occurring prior to its establishment.  Participants need to first be 
>put on notice.

+1

At 12:43 PM -0500 11/28/09, Brett McDowell wrote:
I would support them having delegated authority on behalf of the 
community to take any action they deemed appropriate, including but 
not limited to suspension.  I would just expect them to make their 
decisions by consensus, especially suspension.

At 11:06 AM -0800 11/28/09, David Recordon wrote:
I've banned Santosh and will remove that ban in 30 days.

At 11:16 AM -0800 11/28/09, Chris Messina wrote:
>I would support them having delegated authority on behalf of the 
>community to take any action they deemed appropriate, including but 
>not limited to suspension.  I would just expect them to make their 
>decisions by consensus, especially suspension.

Agreed.