Request: ban Harald Reindl from devel@

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 09:00 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 05/23/2013 08:38 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 08:29 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >> No matter how you look at it, the cost of successfully banning an
> >> individual in the project will eventually come with the hefty price on
> >> joining.
> > Unless I am misreading the title of the thread, I believe the request is
> > not to be someone from the project, just from the mailing lists.
> > This would still allow this person to be active in other places but
> > somewhat less public.
> 
> You cant successfully ban an individual from our mailing lists since 
> there are relevantly easy ways to circumvent that and I would think that 
> it was already within the power of the relevant list admins to do if 
> they think individuals cross the line.
> 
> Seriously we should not be wasting everyones time if that's the case, 
> they should just go ahead and ban. Doing so is no different then an 
> three strike ( the list admins telling individuals they are crossing the 
> line ) kick on IRC followed by BANNED and it really should not require 
> involvement of the board/cwg no more then it's not required for irc 
> channels.
>
> If not it defeats the purpose of having list admins in the first place 
> and us ( the community ) placing trust in them ( list admins ) taking 
> appropriate actions when it becomes necessary...

I'm gonna be beaten for that but the list admins are not elected and you
trust them with power allowing to ban/silent people from our lists while
you've been sending countless (ok, 19) emails asking why the CWG was not
elected while this group has no power what-so-ever and is there to help
as a mediation corp. Really?
CWG has no power, all they could have said was: "We have discussed with
X and we believe we have reach a place where everyone is happy" or "We
have discussed with X and could not make him realize that his current
behavior is damaging to the community".

My reading of the situation is simply that the board asked the CWG to
perform what it's meant for, be a mediation body and see with the person
if a consensus could be found that would make everyone happy.
I did *not* read it as the board asked the CWG to reach to the person
and if in case of failure to communicate, ban him.

> If we are not talking about permanently ban an individual from the 
> project the list admins should just go ahead and block/ban him.

Well, reading the two emails from Adam that started this thread, all
that was asked for to ban completely this person from devel@ and users at .
There was no mention of bugzilla nor FAS (where he did not sign the FPCA
and thus isn't in any group).

Pierre