[using this mail to reply Martin, so that I have all CC]
> El 15/05/17 a las 15:07, martin f krafft escribió:
>> The original proposal listed a number of potential consequences to
>> offences, among other more concrete incidence response processes.
>>
>> What's the reason you didn't include those in your version(s)?
I also don't like such list. First, who will enforce it? DPL?
Anti-harassment or organizers?
But the main reason: the list is very weak and it seems to be done from
harasser point of view. The ban is also just temporary.
It seems we say: "harassment could happens, don't do it again". Just an
warning (#3), apologies (#1) or promise to stop (#2).
Is this really what we want to communicate? We forgot completely the
victims (which include also Debian community). And Debian policies are
much stronger. We are communicating the wrong ideas.
ciao
cate
_______________________________________________
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
