On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 20:22, Dan Ackroyd <dan...@basereality.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 20:10, Rowan Tommins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > I would be interested to hear your thoughts on these suggestions. > > > > I encourage you to work on them. Or anyone else who cares to. And the > sooner there is concrete alternative proposal the better. > Hi Dan, The purpose of the two week discussion period for RFCs is so that we can work together to improve them, not so that people can independently work on overlapping proposals. > But in the meantime, I think this RFC is an improvement on the current > situation. As I said, I have tried to measure the proposal against its stated aim: to prevent disruption of the mailing list. In its current form, I do not think it will achieve that aim. > Although I agree with the action of removing those people, there were > no clear rules, or people who could 'officially' tell those people > "your behaviour is being disruptive". This RFC at least provides a > framework for that. Your proposal provides neither clear rules, nor clear authority, and indeed goes out of its way to avoid both, with an open definition of "disruptive behaviour" and a careful avoidance of the word "moderator". In some extremely rare cases there is consensus that a ban is clearly warranted; in such cases, any vote would be a formality. It would feel more legitimate than a "dictatorial" decision, but the situation arises so rarely it would make very little difference to the general tone of the community. In any other case, a vote under this proposal would be extremely contentious, and is likely to result in more disruption than it removes. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]
