On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:46:07PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 05:27:25PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Bart Martens wrote:
> > > I suggest we keep things civil, with respect for the persons involved.
> > > It's
> > > really not up to Debian to harm someone's reputation,
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 10:33:42PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Joey Hess:
> > Simply obfuscating the name on the list of banned users (or not posting
> > any names at all, only links to the posts that led to the ban) would
> > eliminate most reputational damage. Ie, random searches for that
>
Le Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:54:02AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>
> I have just uploaded the Debian Policy 3.9.5.0.
Dear all,
this upload represent one year of work, and it was a very interesting
experience, where I leaned a lot about the Debian packaging system.
Unfortunately, my enthusiasm
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > In parallel, I think that we need some technical or social pressure for
> > limiting to 1 or 2 messages a day each individual contribution to long
> > threads.
Le Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 07:35:56AM +0100, Alexander Wirt a écrit :
>
> That is nonsen
Christoph Anton Mitterer writes:
> Perhaps one should think whether such publishing might have legal
> consequences...
> In some countries (like the US) it seems not be so uncommon to publicly
> name offenders or criminals on webpages... in Europe though, you might
> get into legal troubles.
In
Hi.
Perhaps one should think whether such publishing might have legal
consequences...
In some countries (like the US) it seems not be so uncommon to publicly
name offenders or criminals on webpages... in Europe though, you might
get into legal troubles.
Cheers,
Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S
* Joey Hess:
> Simply obfuscating the name on the list of banned users (or not posting
> any names at all, only links to the posts that led to the ban) would
> eliminate most reputational damage. Ie, random searches for that
> person would not turn up a high pagerank debian.org page listing their
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think we should publish them, for several reasons:
I'm in favor of this.
There is clearly a trade-off between the interests of the individual
being banned and those of the community which suffers the consequences
of not knowing a
Steve Langasek writes:
> This also seems like a good compromise to me. Do the other folks who
> object to publishing information that could damage the poster's
> reputation (e.g., Bart, Ingo) think this is ok?
The problem that I have with publicly posting mailing list bans is that I
think it co
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 05:27:25PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Bart Martens wrote:
> > I suggest we keep things civil, with respect for the persons involved. It's
> > really not up to Debian to harm someone's reputation, and that could reflect
> > bad on Debian's reputation.
> > Approaches I could
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013, Boris Pek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > What do the rest of you think?
>
> +1 for publishing the facts of bans and their reasons in a public mailing
> list.
> Only with one correction which have been well described by Rhonda:
>
> >> - It provides a reference point for newcomers to
Hi,
> What do the rest of you think?
+1 for publishing the facts of bans and their reasons in a public mailing list.
Only with one correction which have been well described by Rhonda:
>> - It provides a reference point for newcomers to the Debian community to
>> judge their actions by, to
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 08:54:30AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> I'm in favour of not posting names but links to the posts that led to
> the ban. That it solves the problem of google-shaming is welcome, but
> marginal to me. The most important thing to me in doing that, is that we
> make it clear tha
Am Sonntag, 27. Oktober 2013, 08:54:30 schrieb Enrico Zini:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 05:27:25PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Simply obfuscating the name on the list of banned users (or not posting
> > any names at all, only links to the posts that led to the ban) would
>
> I'm in favour of not pos
Am Sonntag, 27. Oktober 2013, 07:58:03 schrieb Lars Wirzenius:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 09:00:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > > What do the rest of you think?
> >
> > Given how arbitrarly other bans have been proposed, I
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 05:27:25PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Simply obfuscating the name on the list of banned users (or not posting
> any names at all, only links to the posts that led to the ban) would
I'm in favour of not posting names but links to the posts that led to
the ban. That it solves
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 09:00:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> >
> > What do the rest of you think?
>
> Given how arbitrarly other bans have been proposed, I think that the
> outcome should stay private unless the banned pers
Hi!
In general I agree, but one reason can fire back:
* Steve Langasek [2013-10-26 19:46:41 CEST]:
> - It provides a reference point for newcomers to the Debian community to
>judge their actions by, to understand what kinds of things will get them
>banned from participation (althou
18 matches
Mail list logo
