[OpenID] On the banning of Santosh

[Dave CROCKER]

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