From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C13781382C5 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:03:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E8409E0A52; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:03:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qk0-x233.google.com (mail-qk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A809E0A07 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:03:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id h14so2194802qkj.11 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:03:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=VS/xwDJYNY9JdJKGAH/RiFXFRYONGBE7KEOPEOYl2sU=; b=tW6v2RNKJujgI3yP9/8qfVF6aehYh7BHv6LejyM1uJO5MklmeH7UP9r83oUXldkdjn D73m97VbcdL6AxiykHTi5HYuyteJr/N1xO6HU3v+yxrQD5qtTJlIyfIcUsyflCFK+3Rm 2uL8t3HdM0InZcyb32WQBLgWsJpYZVX6k46SkLxEOnDOz++S5hLq7pUmqex2BLHXT3PO 2/hVOmCtF9IfTvtJ6b++9a6WsTslJkA8ufhBGlyguBGn8cErqhyD3OhjJfYUjdol4gLA 4EyYAq4EyNtvRNxdNf5jTXRgQ6TvJGbI2KeNw8Ye3uZzqMAB0ZXgoKb2zLFMKySpJSyo S9Jg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=VS/xwDJYNY9JdJKGAH/RiFXFRYONGBE7KEOPEOYl2sU=; b=psIQLAC/FPSDx99+sxFQvUamGJ07iYZQ7hLYJjXE4U9kXNDYb8z+1Dm4LvI5UmQyw6 Z5KCHXdOSMkBK2APl5uzV8if5tjM4fZ6knzyWQVep4+P1lrS9oYOyMVqjfhh+8Sqbhfr IJw6+LGpD8sAnuBEFH6jO05ULbL+Wtudphg1tcjvuFRZN6LOWFguWiNulSn9bymYsy2O AqtS0yd8mke+FuEFquJcTKrNyEDbgse5xmpMcys0iQFqB1jnJSl4L3XHicbCOGw72Vp7 scYfpz1aNdaKiBsYBuZ1i087DgcYSYMNDjFZ7nmaF8fOIqQw3Us3aOBdGwIKXIzYJu/D hvEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7G2P+1PFrltuyObdo5QT5bKM9M44GiO3HyY0PUIGfxxsOLLMj0s GdWiSfDjFgFX5yhMNZ2mkbMmew== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELt4Rx9coFmROCCnFdKyDiqoEjcZbWxJP1Bat+/53i7pbdmxpI8inb9IxqypgNNIMgmBqnQ7Yw== X-Received: by 10.55.21.27 with SMTP id f27mr24799849qkh.252.1521561798468; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from whubbs1.gaikai.biz ([100.42.103.5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b37sm1514323qtc.15.2018.03.20.09.03.17 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 5818 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:03:16 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:03:16 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness Message-ID: <20180320160316.GA5785@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <4aab96fa-0edb-6a28-791e-28e2103f2a30@gentoo.org> <0818a5b0-cc1e-403f-6c08-1285999de30f@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0818a5b0-cc1e-403f-6c08-1285999de30f@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) X-Archives-Salt: 52dba782-67ef-4f67-bd0f-45959d54e856 X-Archives-Hash: 330bada0e2a47486af9fa0a474ec615d --IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 04:44:26PM +0100, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 20/03/18 13:17, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > Could someone please explain how this doesn't directly contradict the > > core tenets of an open and inclusive community? > It's fairly simple to produce a justification of the decision. I can > think of several ways of doing so. One is through an appeal to some > notion of community health improvement from impeding toxic contributors. > In this strategy, the argument would be something pertaining to how > allowing these toxic posters free rein on the mailing list would > contradict the core tenet of an open and inclusive community. There are > several more ways to rationalise the decision. >=20 > But you won't buy into either of those purported vindications of this > decision. (I won't either.) So don't bother requesting them. Another > aimless (and thus endless) back and forth in Jackal language isn't > likely to achieve anything worthwhile beyond what the initial exchange > achieved. As the council member who voted against this decision, I am going to express my opinion, even though it will be unpopular with the majority of the council and probably others as well. I do feel that this decision reflects badly on us as a community and should be reversed immediately. The proper way to deal with people who have bad behavior is to deal with them individually and not put a restriction on the community that is not necessary. William --IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQTVeuxEZo4uUHOkQAluVBb0MMRlOAUCWrEwvwAKCRBuVBb0MMRl OJk8AKC3wr+wP33HegcX3qrpqEhZSTDLMwCdG7+aqtwkMoLalxdfhAV9RPAym80= =ckQD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6--