On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 04:44:26PM +0100, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 20/03/18 13:17, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > Could someone please explain how this doesn't directly contradict the > > core tenets of an open and inclusive community? > It's fairly simple to produce a justification of the decision. I can > think of several ways of doing so. One is through an appeal to some > notion of community health improvement from impeding toxic contributors. > In this strategy, the argument would be something pertaining to how > allowing these toxic posters free rein on the mailing list would > contradict the core tenet of an open and inclusive community. There are > several more ways to rationalise the decision. > > But you won't buy into either of those purported vindications of this > decision. (I won't either.) So don't bother requesting them. Another > aimless (and thus endless) back and forth in Jackal language isn't > likely to achieve anything worthwhile beyond what the initial exchange > achieved.
As the council member who voted against this decision, I am going to express my opinion, even though it will be unpopular with the majority of the council and probably others as well. I do feel that this decision reflects badly on us as a community and should be reversed immediately. The proper way to deal with people who have bad behavior is to deal with them individually and not put a restriction on the community that is not necessary. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
