Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Should mailing list bans be published?"):
> But, against that, I would say that the point of mailing list bans is not
> to humiliate or expose someone who behaved poorly, or even to call further
> attention to their poor behavior. Rather, the goal is to *stop* calling
> attention to their behavior and to defend the usability of the list
> against further interference. Actions that tend to produce *more*
> discussion seem directly contrary to that goal. Ideally, everyone would
> simply forget the banned person ever participated in the list and proceed
> as if they had never said anything.
You're missing that one goal of publishing such bans is to provide an
example to other people, clearly showing what Debian will not
tolerate.
This works both to show potential good contributors that Debian does
take this seriously and will protect them if they are attacked, and to
show potential wrongdoers what they won't get away with.
Without publishing the bans it just looks like the trolls got bored,
or the victims went into hiding.
I agree with those who say that, for Debian's reptutation etc., a
series of bad messages is worse than a series of bad messages followed
by a disciplinary notice from the listmasters.
Before reading this thread I was frustrated by what appears looks to
an outsider (which includes a mere DD) like lack of action, by those
in authority, against bad behaviour. I'm surprised to discover that
there are unpublished bans.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21102.29336.22477.957...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
