[OpenID] On the banning of Santosh

[Andrew Arnott]

I like the list of rules you mentioned, and I think adopting a set of rules
and publishing them is a good idea.

(violations: I'm cross-posting in this reply I suppose)
--
Andrew Arnott
"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death
your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre


On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:08 PM, David Recordon <recordond at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c2a5b963/attachment-0001.htm>