On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:17:29 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Camaleón <noelamac+gm...@gmail.com> writes: > >> The mailing list managers/admins have the right to ban whoever they >> decide, but in the aim of "fair play", the user should also have the >> right to defend him/herself from the accusations, expose his/her >> reasoning and be able to restore him/her reputation or recognize the >> error, say sorry and come back to the list again. > > I don't agree with this part of your message. Debian is under no > obligation to play fair. We are not a legal system and have no > obligation to give people any sort of due process. Debian's mailing > lists are instruments of the project, and the project can decide how > they are used.
(...) Well, being "fair" does not have to relate to any legal concept so please disregard any thought about it; to be fair is just a moral issue like being transparent. And yes, I would expect Debian (as a project) embraces that way. > It's not like we're depriving people of life and limb, or even property. > They just can't send mail to one of our mailing lists for a while. If > there's an occasional mistake, oh well, life goes on. If I get banned > for a month or two from a mailing list for something I said that was > ill-advised, I'm not going to argue about it; I'm going to realize that, > whatever I thought about what I said, other people were quite upset > about it, and I should take that into account in the future. It gives > me some time to think about it. The problem I see here is not "being banned" (which I agree) but "being listed" as rejected for posting in a list that can be accessible. Sincerely, I don't see any gain in exposing those facts (the facts are that a user has been banned from posting to certain mailing list and also that Debian has acted in this regard). > Review of the decisions *by other project members* is fine, but > generally the messages themselves are self-explanatory and I neither > care nor want to know what justifications the person banned is going to > dig up. If they're sorry and won't do it again, great! After the ban > expires, they can demonstrate that. But let's keep this process simple. Simple, I agree but also fair (for both parts) and transparent. > If some decision seems egregiously wrong, other developers who are > worried about it can always approach the banned person in private and > ask for their side of the story, but we don't need to make anything > formal. "Developers"? You mean only "developers" can lead an action to ask for someone to be banned? :-? >> So I have to agree with Alexander's POV that these things need to be >> done in the background to preserve the privacy right of the user, >> despite if he/she is using a real name or a nickname. > >> In brief: IMO there's no need to make a public list and Debian Project >> has nothing to demonstrate nobody because being effectively banned is >> the only "proof of action" worth doing. > >> Here in Spain we have a saying ("hacer leña del árbol caído") which can >> resemble into "kick a man when he's down" and that's IMO what we should >> avoid here. > > I'm still somewhat inclined to agree with this, though, and prefer > debian-private as the venue for advertising these, although the > arguments about making it publicly clear that we're doing something > about bad behavior on our lists are fairly compelling. I only wish that, whatever the final decision, it gets properly explained at the wiki so any user can be aware of this. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- 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/pan.2013.11.04.18.31...@gmail.com