Steev Klimaszewski <steev gentoo.org> posted
46680A01.9090801gentoo.org,
excerpted below, on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:37:05 -0500:
> Not everyone had your perception either - in fact, it
would appear that
> a lot of people have the same perception as me, which
is that Neddy saw
> the potential of this thread to do exactly what has
happened, and asked
> for people to NOT post for 24 hours. Certain
individuals decided to
> respond anyways due to that being their nature, and
they got banned.
> Suddenly because those people have a tendency to do
this "proctors are
> out to get them" []
Agreed. I believe I responded to one post in the thread, an
entirely
favorable response I don't believe anyone will have an issue
with, BTW,
because it showed up higher in my thread list than did the
"please don't
post for 24-hours" proctors' request. Then I got to
the proctor's
request and felt a bit badly, that I had posted without yet
seeing it.
Had I been banned for 24-hours as a result, with a (probably
form, given
the number of folks it would apply to) response to the
effect that
everyone posting was getting it, I'd have certainly been
frustrated, but
would have understood (tho admittedly it might have taken me
a fair bit
of that 24 hours /to/ understand).
Anyway, I think it has been 24-hours /now/, so I don't feel
badly about
posting again now... not that there was anything I felt
strongly and
clearly enough to post on in the interim.
>> Attempts to become more proactive were dismissed.
One such attempt was
>> to enforce bans on all mediums. For example, if
someone is banned for
>> 24 hours for their actions on IRC, they should be
banned from all of
>> our media. Why? Because there's nothing keeping
the person from just
>> moving "next door" and starting more
problems. We've even seen it
>> happen in at least one occasion that I am aware of
with this list and
>> the forums.
>> <more snippage of good informations>
>
>> I know I am planning on bringing up discussion on
this at the next
>> Council meeting and we'll simply go from there.
>>
>>
> Good to know that it will be discussed.
Agreed.
>From my perspective, I think the proctor thing is a good
idea, and
contrary to some, I'm /not/ of the opinion it has been
deliberately used
against certain people.
The problem, and I remember many people saying so at the
time, was that
the idea wasn't subject to the usual time limit impositions
that most
proposals go thru. If it wasn't a response to the specific
situation,
and I'll trust Chris that it wasn't, it sure SEEMED like it
was, and that
it was rammed thru without proper debate and discussion.
That's really sad, IMO, because what's happening is what I
believe a lot
of people could have predicted would happen, given the way
it was rammed
thru. What /was/ a great proposal in principle, ended up
with a crappy
implementation, without official public guidelines, with no
way to answer
allegations of favoritism (which were CERTAIN to come up) as
a result of
the lack of guidelines, perhaps with a bit of favoritism
demonstrated,
not deliberately, but /because/ of the same lack of
guidelines... etc.
If it was /not/ a response to the specific incident, why
then the rush?
Why was it rammed thru as if the continuance of time itself
was at
stake? Had it been done in the normal orderly way, the
process itself
would have taken care of these issues we are now dealing
with, at least
to the point there would have been some guidelines, some
sort of answer
that could be given referencing the official guidelines as
to whether
there was favoritism or not. Whatever. What's done is
done, and we're
living with the consequences.
I'm glad to see the decision is going to be reexamined. As
I stated
above, I'm in favor of the idea. It's just the birth of it
that wasn't
right. Regardless of that, hopefully, our new baby isn't
going to be
thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak. I'm honestly
not sure it's
possible now, but I'd love to see a proctor's project that
could stand up
with confidence and point not only to direct council
authorization, but
public guidelines also blessed by the council, so they could
act with
confidence, clear in the knowledge that they are within
properly
established guidelines, and that any challenge as to
favoritism
(deliberate or not) or the like can be met equally
confidently. Perhaps
this baby, "bastard" tho he might have started,
will now be given the
chance to grow into a mature and respected member of the
community. =8^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."
Richard Stallman
--
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list
|
