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 4E03A139083 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 23:02:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A6C33E10FE; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 23:02:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf0-x236.google.com (mail-pf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (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 488EBE1104 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 23:02:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id p84so1302699pfd.3 for ; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 15:02:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=v3wlGy5FciJGN+/hAZ/M+ARkI4pAYGx865CHhn7Uzts=; b=a+3wJz2HGgAnbmPwxb34fV9PC6VARjfxwwVbhazVDRuv/HtYIYFnfitB0zDuvhNSt7 0y18dMeJTvPORzVVcL1enl+covhppE1Wdh8X6cZuuILXFkcPXSi8edhkSP2S30T7/3Z7 xUxFBv6VKwONiPyt8ofH0WXkQ3MxVEfTLeVbIiZCfRRnd30w/JCeoN7HeoCcsW5ndJez hGm/+O4/koTYwyFoWbVINUHYz5ensc1qsC946OWeGCAHSWMCs5PyVCVkFwESWcgdSe/i bOssaabGoKxuh3D23B8xrGvEgPls9kTx7a+AqP/yBekQh/dBI/scNkG+TY7z6zKKoRXx F2uw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=v3wlGy5FciJGN+/hAZ/M+ARkI4pAYGx865CHhn7Uzts=; b=uoQqqJ72C3NW/8myySQ8tSsogy/81DMjTD1Fl6BitSbKvhy6ypev2YwoRnCIr6zGzt 4xMtJK9uYDK82+kn1NOzuRh9LAvEmTZjFwn3soUEQ7TNznnfsxPQoquegu+zxKNwO6GM IaGQmmvqy45iGxD5LA+tDu3nsOXPfsh41w3Oj9mYj48SqZNtrU/iNZWV8hDpAUfIMzVY q8ySIsesfmU1YLcuJ8N7yVlAH+TYddIyTQayL3wCsaZeadUkHnS5uy9AAfb0OACLs4We qQSjqezC1TwwNwhf/iOzxnvF5Flz+LK8JcwdKgv9cb2sqWFK4d4+1g+BkXBKatkqHy93 uHKg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKKNMsT0qZoTdZGLjnNVTmGf6O2mGEDWDO4e7Xu9tJwLRZbAD8J qILdjvel/3+ENYCQ7+NIjTSn1yB/MoqayKRyGSmBcA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMb4oGegHEwIjfdwtipU3QS7+q5WetK3jDj7oN3/iYKFAgBE2Kc/58KKDdY5LPY0PM8T3FmJ35y569aLk8H/4xY= X-Received: by 10.98.166.148 with SMTP id r20mr593247pfl.80.1512514922672; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 15:02:02 -0800 (PST) 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 Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.100.151.169 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:02:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1512256684.30000.48.camel@gentoo.org> <20171204202450.GA29072@clocktown> <20171205085940.GA4167@stuge.se> <20171205211610.GA18378@clocktown> <66724fe3-0181-b912-b32a-dd088d51e4fe@gentoo.org> From: Rich Freeman Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:02:01 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: xDDcZ3bH-iDxaZvuJC45B7GuFto Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: d37376ee-6435-412b-a33d-9e99b84e7bad X-Archives-Hash: 8d9697615fd9472a69cb3ab64fd50ee0 On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:25:21 -0500 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand >> wrote: >> > On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> > >> >> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses >> >> other members of the community in private after being told to >> >> stop, and then acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing >> >> lists? >> > >> > This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and >> > would certainly be a matter for comrel. >> > >> What do you do when they keep posting manifestos or whatever on the >> lists every few months, or generally stirring up the community about >> how unjustly they're being treated? When the appeal is to popular >> opinion, instead of the defined process for handling these appeals? > > For readers who may assume. Along the lines of me being kicked. I have > never ever in my life ever done anything along those lines, nor was > kicked. What ever Rich is referring to is another person, not me!!!! > The problem is that with current policies if somebody in Comrel/etc had evidence to the contrary they would not be able to refute such a denial. My example wasn't of wltjr specifically (at least not to my knowledge), but it just goes to the point of why having these sorts of things hashed out on the mailing lists on the first place. At best it results in damage to reputations and attention drawn to victims (and perpetrators) of such activities. At worst it can lead to escalation/lawsuits/etc. -- Rich