Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership

["Jason D. Clinton" <me jasonclinton com>]

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org> wrote:

On 11/25/2009 02:18 PM, Jason D. Clinton wrote:

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org

<mailto:behdad behdad org>> wrote:

   To make the discussion more practical, lets take one real incident
   of the past:  Murray's blog re Jeff.  It did not include vulgar
   language.  It did include exaggerations that turned into libel.  Now
   how does any proposed solution deal with that?

...

   I like specific answer to "how would your proposed solution would
   address this past incident, if it happened again?" from anyone
   proposing a solution.


Action: Jeff refers his complaint to the membership committee, MC agrees
it was out of bounds, and sends a warning to Murray (first offence).

End result: Jeff feels vindicated in his belief that he was wronged and
is feels that any further attacks are unlikely as the Foundation (via
MC) makes it clear, publicly, that this attack was out of bounds and
that any further attack of that time will result in actual suspension of
privileges.

How does this not improve on what we have now?

I'm guessing that Jeff would not have bothered to play cop and the end result would have been as it is today, plus a "first offence" for Murray.  I'm not sure the end result would have been much different.

I understand your point but I do think it would have made Jeff feel a little better, even if it were someone else that referred the event to the MC.

In any case, I think we are straying slight from what we actually want: to prevent such attacks from happening in the first place; by explicitly stating that all GNOME communication forums come with this implicit terms of use, we decrease the probability of bad behaviour before it ever happens.

That's not to mention never having to have this thread come up again. :)