Le 21/09/2018 à 13:06, Christian Heimes a écrit :
In my opinion it's both wrong and unfair to compare the ban with Anatoly's ban. For one we didn't have a process and general consent for bans.
AFAIK we still don't. I don't know where such a procedure is written out, and I don't remember my opinion being asked or considered on the matter. I certainly don't remember consenting to immediate permanent bans as a response to use of culture-specific taboos (rather than actual insults or racist discourse).
As it is, the current "process" is vague and privately decided. That's not an acceptable standard on a mature project.
It took us a while to agree on the procedure. Also Anatoly wasn't
flat out hostile and insulting. He was mentally draining and exhausting on a more subtle level.
Yeah... no, not so subtle. You're painting things in a rosy colour here. He had been a problem for months or years. It was obvious something had to be done. But apparently the "key people" were reluctant to take a decision, even though there was frequent outrage at Anatoly's contributions. Now we're facing the inverse problem: the "key people" feel like they have to take overhanded decisions extremely quickly, as if it was going to make the atmosphere more peaceful (which, by construction, it won't).
Participation on these mailing lists is a privilege, not a right. We grant the privilege to everybody, but also reserve the right to remove the privilege.
"Privilege" is a weird way to describe volunteer labour.
Regards
Antoine.