On Mon, 06 Feb 2017, Ian Jackson wrote: > This distributed approach has strengths (which Don points out) but it > also has weaknesses. Principally, it means that though we advertise a > single point of contact, that point of contact is mostly a go-between > and support function for forum-specific teams;
The antiharassment team is the single publicly-advertised point of contact, and (in theory) knows which teams are responsible for all of the different communications channels and events. Many forums also advertise a forum-specific point of contact which can take action more rapidly. > and it also makes it somewhat harder for us to respond to problems > with span several communication channels or several events. The few cases where we have had an individual which has been harassing others which spanned multiple forums, at least listmaster@ and owner@ have been able to communicate fairly effectively and implement consequences fairly rapidly. Even if antiharassment@ was given the authority to establish consequences directly, it would still require action of the teams in question to enact those consequences. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com Of course, there are cases where only a rare individual will have the vision to perceive a system which governs many people's lives; a system which had never before even been recognized as a system; then such people often devote their lives to convincing other people that the system really is there and that it aught to be exited from. -- Douglas R. Hofstadter _Gödel Escher Bach. Eternal Golden Braid_