[OpenID] On the banning of Santosh

Sun Nov 29 23:22:24 UTC 2009

I was once the recipient of some pretty bad karma on the OpenID circuit 
though differing opinions but nevertheless i do think in order to advance we 
do need to set a bar as David pointed out (i haven't had time to follow all 
the threads so a bit lost on what happened).

I do think there can be a difficulty in communication outwith the people who 
can attend many of the meetups and have a more direct involvement and those 
who (try to) participate from afar - and i guess some people have their own 
techniques in "shouting".

Perhaps we can learn from it - personally think the community has done too 
many good things to lose itself in a discussion on how to behave just as 
momentum is build built! Maybe if a particular user behavior needs 
discussion the moderator sends a single email to the community - the 
community reply privately (or anon on one of the 8 billion polling systems) 
with a "yae" or "nae", votes tallied and action is (or isn't) taken.

Does make the recent discussions around reputation and user stats a bit more 
interesting.

steven
http://livz.org

--------------------------------------------------
From: "John Kemp" <john at jkemp.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 11:05 PM
To: "DeWitt Clinton" <dewitt at unto.net>
Cc: <general at openid.net>; <board at lists.openid.net>
Subject: Re: [OpenID] On the banning of Santosh

> On Nov 29, 2009, at 3:30 PM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
>
>> Not to deviate too far from the point, but there's a bit of game  theory 
>> to that approach:
>>
>> In a closed environment, an agreement among participants to ignore  rude 
>> behavior (in hopes that it goes away), might be an effective  strategy --  
>> but only if all participate.
>>
>> In an open, anonymous, public forum, there is always the chance (and  as 
>> we've seen, the inevitability) that even one person can defy the 
>> agreement, thus rendering that strategy ineffective for all.
>
> Well, I wasn't really talking about a single strategy, but more  generally 
> about how the actions of an individual are quite largely  determined by 
> the community within which the individual is acting.
>
>>
>> But again, this is not a discussion about the merit of Santosh's  points. 
>> It is a reaction to his repeatedly making inappropriate (by  any 
>> measure!) personal attacks on fellow contributors to this  forum.  That's 
>> the part that we *shouldn't* ignore if we hope to  foster a productive, 
>> civil environment for collaboration.
>
> Perhaps I'm imagining it, but it felt to me very much as if Santosh  felt 
> his points were being ignored, for whatever reasons, by the  community. 
> Perhaps he felt that his best option to make a point was  then to "go 
> nuclear"?
>
> - johnk
>
>>
>> -DeWitt
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM, John Kemp <john at jkemp.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 2009, at 2:43 PM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> When people shout or are rude, it is often because they feel that  their 
>> point (which they might have tried to make repeatedly) is not  being 
>> heard. Sometimes the point is not heard because it is not  explained in 
>> terms that the listener(s) can sufficiently understand.  And sometimes 
>> the point is not heard because the listener is not  listening hard 
>> enough. And often there's a combination of these  problems. Communication 
>> is always conducted between two or more  people, and if it doesn't work, 
>> any blame is shared by all the  participants, however much those 
>> participants will say that they are  being clear, or listening carefully. 
>> Getting to a shared  understanding of an issue is a real art - and even 
>> more so when  people can't see each other.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> The most effective way to deprive someone of their ability to make  their 
>> point is to ignore them when they are not "on topic", not to  deprive 
>> them of their ability to make their point, which often  simply results in 
>> more shouting.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> - johnk
>>
>>
>>
>> -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:
>>
>>        • 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?
>>
>>        • 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".
>>
>>        • 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.
>>
>>        • 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
> 