On Sun, 27 Oct 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> >
> > What do the rest of you think?
>
> Given how arbitrarly other bans have been proposed, I think that the outcome
> should stay private unless the banned person wishes so. This
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>So I don't think bans need to be posted anywhere prominent like
>debian-devel-announce, but I do think basic facts like who is banned, for
>how long, and the rationale (with links to specific mailing list posts as
>reference) should
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013, Joey Hess wrote:
> Bart Martens wrote:
> > I suggest we keep things civil, with respect for the persons involved. It's
> > really not up to Debian to harm someone's reputation, and that could reflect
> > bad on Debian's reputation.
> > Approaches I could support :
> > - pos
Le Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
>
> What do the rest of you think?
Given how arbitrarly other bans have been proposed, I think that the outcome
should stay private unless the banned person wishes so. This will also reduce
the pressure on the listmasters, by red
Bart wrote:
> > > The harm that could come to Debian's reputation is that Debian could be
> > > perceived as an organization that harms people's reputation by judging
> > > them in
> > > public about their behavior on the mailing lists.
Steve replied:
> > Ok, thanks for explaining. This isn't so
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 04:05:05PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:08:42PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
>
> > > > > What do the rest of you think?
>
> > > > I suggest we keep things civil, with respect for the persons involved.
> > > > It's really not up to Debian to harm
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:08:42PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> > > > What do the rest of you think?
> > > I suggest we keep things civil, with respect for the persons involved.
> > > It's really not up to Debian to harm someone's reputation, and that could
> > > reflect bad on Debian's reputati
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:58:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Bart,
>
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 07:33:34PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > This led to a philosophical debate about whether bans should be made
> > > public.
Bart Martens wrote:
> I suggest we keep things civil, with respect for the persons involved. It's
> really not up to Debian to harm someone's reputation, and that could reflect
> bad on Debian's reputation.
>
> Approaches I could support :
> - post the bans with reasons on debian-private
> - or m
expanding on this point of the OP,
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
- It provides a reference point for newcomers to the Debian
community to judge their actions by, to understand what kinds of
things will get them banned from participation (although I expect
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 20:24 +, Bart Martens wrote:
> Cover up ? I did suggest approaches with full transparency among DDs.
I don't think that's the meaning of “public” Steve (And Lars) initially
thought about…
Regards,
--
Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed me
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 09:20:27PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 19:33 +, Bart Martens wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > This led to a philosophical debate about whether bans should be made
> > > public.
> > > Alexander expre
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 10:46 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Was discussing with one of the listmasters (Alexander Wirt) on IRC today
> about mailing list bans, because it turns out that someone I was just about
> to ask the listmasters to ban from debian-devel had just been blocked in
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 19:33 +, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > This led to a philosophical debate about whether bans should be made public.
> > Alexander expressed concern that having them published could be harmful to a
> > person's rep
Hi Bart,
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 07:33:34PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > This led to a philosophical debate about whether bans should be made public.
> > Alexander expressed concern that having them published could be harmful to a
Bart Martens writes:
> Approaches I could support :
> - post the bans with reasons on debian-private
+1. I think this provides most of the benefits that Steve names (albeit
in a reduced form) and allows oversight without getting into a public
fight with that person. (Or getting into weird issu
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This led to a philosophical debate about whether bans should be made public.
> Alexander expressed concern that having them published could be harmful to a
> person's reputation, since employers will google your name and see that
> y
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 08:56:59PM +0200, Ingo Jürgensmann wrote:
> Am 26.10.2013 um 19:46 schrieb Steve Langasek :
> > This led to a philosophical debate about whether bans should be made public.
> > Alexander expressed concern that having them published could be harmful to a
> > person's reputat
On 10/26/2013 02:26 PM, Ingo Jürgensmann wrote:
> Am 26.10.2013 um 19:46 schrieb Steve Langasek :
>
>> This led to a philosophical debate about whether bans should be made public.
>> Alexander expressed concern that having them published could be harmful to a
>> person's reputation, since employer
Am 26.10.2013 um 19:46 schrieb Steve Langasek :
> This led to a philosophical debate about whether bans should be made public.
> Alexander expressed concern that having them published could be harmful to a
> person's reputation, since employers will google your name and see that
> you've been bann
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Was discussing with one of the listmasters (Alexander Wirt) on IRC today
> about mailing list bans, because it turns out that someone I was just about
> to ask the listmasters to ban from debian-devel had just been blo
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This led to a philosophical debate about whether bans should be made public.
> Alexander expressed concern that having them published could be harmful to a
> person's reputation, since employers will google your name and see that
> y
Hi Steve,
Steve Langasek (2013-10-26):
> Was discussing with one of the listmasters (Alexander Wirt) on IRC today
> about mailing list bans, because it turns out that someone I was just about
> to ask the listmasters to ban from debian-devel had just been blocked in
> response to a request from s
Hi folks,
Was discussing with one of the listmasters (Alexander Wirt) on IRC today
about mailing list bans, because it turns out that someone I was just about
to ask the listmasters to ban from debian-devel had just been blocked in
response to a request from someone else.
This led to a philosophi
24 matches
Mail list logo
