> On Apr 14, 2021, at 4:39 PM, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:08 AM Jeff Law via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> once or twice when physical violence with threatened, but that's about
>> it (aside from spammers). I don't think we want to get too deep into
>> moderation and the like -- IMHO it should be an extremely rare event.
>> As much as I disagree with some of the comments that have been made I
>> don't think they've risen to the level of wanting/needing to ban those
>> individuals from posting.
>
> I think it's useful to observe that there are a reasonable number of
> people who will refuse to participate in a project in which the
> mailing list has regular personal attacks and other kinds of abusive
> behavior. I know this because I've spoken with such people myself.
> They simply say "that project is not for me" and move on.
>
> So we don't get the choice between "everyone is welcome" and "some
> people are kicked off the list." We get the choice between "some
> people decline to participate because it is unpleasant" and "some
> people are kicked off the list."
>
> Given the choice of which group of people are going to participate and
> which group are not, which group do we want?
My answer is "it depends". More precisely, in the past I would have favored
those who decline because the environment is unpleasant -- with the implied
assumption being that their objections are reasonable. Given the emergency of
cancel culture, that assumption is no longer automatically valid.
This is why I asked the question "who decides?" Given a disagreement in which
the proposed remedy is to ostracise a participant, it is necessary to inquire
for what reason this should be done (and, perhaps, who is pushing for it to be
done). My suggestion is that this judgment can be made by the community (via
secret ballot), unless it is decided to delegate that power to a smaller body,
considered as trustees, or whatever you choose to call them.
paul
