Fair response - pragmatic and helpful. Thanks, Ian. -Ben On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:34 AM Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:19 PM ben...@gmail.com <benh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > permanent bans were given to multiple individuals, with no possibility > for appeal > > > > I don't disagree with the bans, but this part -- the "no possibility for > appeal" seems very ... totalitarian. What if a mistake was made? (Again, > not saying it was here, but in general, to err is human.) I'm comparing to > various legal systems, in which there is almost always the possibility of > appeal, even for heinous crimes. Another aspect is that sometimes people > change and realize their mistake later, sometimes even because of an > excommunication like this. What's the rationale for "no possibility of > appeal"? > > My take on this is that if someone has chosen for whatever reason to > attack a project, an appeals process just provides another mechanism > for them to consume project resources. > > Also, in practice, we are all pseudonyms here anyhow. If people > change their ways, they will likely benefit from adopting a new > pseudonym that is free of any toxicity attached to the old one. > > Finally, this is a process run by human beings, not computer code or > even a legal system. There can always be adjustments and exceptions > over time if there are good reasons for them. > > Ian > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAL9jXCF%2BOXG0srpJcw64yXgBgoqH%2B-bgqc3RA98p0-G9oEQgfg%40mail.gmail.com.
