On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 9:49 PM BST, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
>
> 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
I think, in general, it's fine to leave this decision to moderators. It's
just a little disconcerting when one of the people who would probably be
moderating is saying that he could have shut down the discussion if he
could only ban jerks, as if to imply that everyone who dares to disagree
with his position is a jerk worthy of a ban.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
