+1 what Frederik said. Thanks, saved me some typing there. We seem to have calmed down, I thought Mele had some very helpful advice. We can all help to drag up the baseline of civility after this painfully illustrative incident.
To me this looks like a pre-emptive attempt at a decision which there would be absolutely no shame in retracting while there is work in progress. On Dec 2, 2014 11:22 PM, "Frederik Ramm" <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > Darrell, > > without going into the specifics of this case, there's one bit in > your message that had a bad taste for me. > > What you have essentially done is elevate Serge's message to almost > "extreme violation" status because you've decided to sanction > immediately, rather than just going through the usual procedure. > > Your justification for this seems to be behaviour outside of this list > and/or, and this is the bit I take particular offense with, > > "The private responses to me have generally expressed that is part of a > pattern of behavior, and not an isolated incident." > > Which, in essence, means nothing less than people having emailed you in > private and influenced your decision by telling you bad things about Serge. > > I've been on the unpleasant end of moderation myself and I can tell you > that there's few things more hurtful than having a "secret court" > against you in which some people get the chance to whisper something in > the moderator's ear, and the moderator ends up partly justifying their > decision by what he's been told. > > "Lurkers support me in email" is a common theme on mailing lists, and it > is incredibly easy to succumb to this but a moderator especially should > not. If accusations cannot be in plain view (anonymised by the moderator > if absolutely necessary) then they should also not be used to build a > case against someone. Just like in a proper legal process, the accused > has to have a chance to see what accusations are leveled against them, > rather than just: "Emails have been sent by an undisclosed number of > unnamed people which paint the picture of the accused being a repeat > offender." > > (Had I known that you were soliciting email comments about Serge's > character, who knows, I might have sent one in his favour?) > > The absolute least you should have done is say something like how many > "private responses" you have had from how many people and what they > said, roughly. > > Else you're not only blocking someone from participating for 60 days, > but you're also giving them the nagging feeling that there's an > undefined mob (2 people? 5? 10? 50?) out there who are happy to secretly > email everyone about an alleged "pattern of behaviour". And what > recourse is there against rumours? > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > _______________________________________________ > diversity-talk mailing list > diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk >
_______________________________________________ diversity-talk mailing list diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
