On 5 January 2016 at 20:26, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! > > > That is the problem: you cannot discuss how to protect the accused > > without having the context of the abused. As you have yourself pointed > > out with examples, it is a tradeoff. > > But that is exactly what I want - to have full(er) context! The secret > procedure makes that harder. Of course, there are tradeoffs and some > details must be withheld - but the first version of RFC (did not read > the new one yet) was "maximum confidentiality", and that's not good IMO. > I think the default should be "maximum disclosure, unless it's obviously > damaging (personal data, etc.) or no-content (insults, slurs, etc.)". > I.e. I recognize there's no absolute, I just want the balance be different. > > That makes very good sense. I think the process could be optimized, but I think aiming for maximum disclosure is as problematic as maximum confidentiality - it ignores the perspective of one party. > > That is a truism: doing more damage is not fixing anything. However, > > unless I am mistaken, you yourself put forward the lack of explicit > > problems as an argument in favour of not doing anything. > > Right. So that's one point of discussion - should we do anything at all > or not. But if we *are* doing something - that's the second point of > discussion - namely, institute new structure with broad powers in the > community - we should do it in a way that is least likely to cause damage. > > I wholeheartedly agree. -- <hype> WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind LinkedIn: plind Twitter: kafe15 </hype>
