Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 16 Mar 2006, MJ Ray spake thusly: > > I disagree. The candidate only seems to get that choice > > after there are enough people gathered against them. When a > > totally crap request collapses without getting Q supporters, > > the request and supporters details stay in the star chamber. > > That allows people to make bigoted expulsion requests with > > relatively little personal reputation risk. They can keep > > going with the witchhunt until the candidate walks away. > > I think the idea is that the person facing expulsion procedures > may not want future employers to be able to google about the > episode. Given that the process does fail, it would simplify matters > for the individual if they did not have to try to explain this to > people in the future.
If a bad expulsion request fails, then any decent interview candidate will be able to explain it easily. If there was any justification to the request, often evidence is findable by searching the web anyway and debian stuff tends to show up high in web searches. Finally, if the expulsion succeeds, surely it will become public somehow. I believe people who make bigoted or knee-jerk expulsion requests don't want to be identified, but we should share the reputation risk a bit more evenly and not let DDs go whispering to a witchfinder-general in total safety. I'd prefer simple social scrutiny to the "if a person tries to get another person kicked out of the Debian project, and they fail, they themselves will be kicked out" approach advocated during the 2006 DPL campaign. Optimistically, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
