On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 01:43:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Nope. > > So, nobody's owning up to having banned him, there's been no explanation > of why he was banned, there's no information as to how long the ban is > to be in place, there's been no appeals or review process offered for > this administrative action, and no one appears willing to revert this > decision.
I'd say this also violates clause #3 of the social contract: 3. We Won't Hide Problems We will keep our entire bug-report database open for public view at all times. Reports that users file on-line will immediately become visible to others. So, we have a situation in which people not recognized as delegates are nonetheless empowered to usurp our social contract with not so much as a whisper as to why, or that it's happening? Branden, I think the best way to get your Social Contract revisions passed is to just join the BTS admin team :-) -- John Having said all that, I think it is legitimate to block certain abusers, but it ought to be documented and there should be clear ways for removing that block and for preventing innocent people from being blocked. I'm not saying that I disagree with the original action in this case, but I certainly disagree with the lack of transparency surrounding it.
