* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:01:18 20:23 +0100]: > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Joerg Jaspert writes: > >> On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote: > >>> Since this mail also mentions Andrews sarcastic posting > >>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/01/msg00009.html I > >>> may lose posting permissions as well. > >> You should lose -private rights, as you clearly cant follow its rule to > >> not leak. > > I don't understand. Martin's email did not mention -private. Do you > > mean to say that this decision was made as the result of discussion on > > -private? > > No, but the decision was only published in a posting to -private. The > whole point of Joey's mail was to make the act of revoking posting > permissions public (which I support, though I'm not too happy about the > way it was done)
It's not possible for those of us not on -private to figure out what's going on, really, but is it possible that it wasn't made public in an effort to protect Andrew's privacy? Were I a listmaster, that would've been one of my considerations, regardless of what he'd done to justify the ban. I think it's potentially important that the rest of us know some disciplinary action has been taken, but I can't say that it's relevant to, say, his future employers. (M-F-T: set to -project, *please* reply there.) -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
