also on the word suspension - to me it sounds like a membership in the organization would be suspended, whereas a ban would be on anyone who has visited. so rolling that into another question, should we have different tracks for members and nonmembers? if i recall our practice is that a member may ask a nonmember to leave at any time if they feel unsafe. i think whatever we feel makes sense, we should write it down in the best words we can come up with and adhere to it as uniformly as possible in each case.

on Mar 17, 2014, Patrik D'haeseleer <patrikd@gmail.com> wrote:

Also just a language issue: it may be useful *not* to call it "suspension".

Remember that bit I quoted from the CA code for nonprofits earlier? The part that starts with "No member may be expelled or suspended, and no membership or membership rights may be terminated or suspended, except according to procedures satisfying the requirements of this section."?

The CA code is talking specifically about suspending people as official voting members in the organization. Here's we're just talking about blocking access to the space for someone who may or may not be a paying member.

Very different situation, but it may be useful to avoid any overlap in language we're using for these situations. "Temporary ban" sounds fine to me.

Patrik

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Phil Wolff <pwolff@gmail.com> wrote:

Two proposals.

I'd suggest renaming "temporary ban" to "suspension." Suspensions can be made, lifted, renewed. Bans are permanent. Just a language thing. It might better frame expectations and fears and avoid casual status confusion.

When we suspend someone, let's be clear about giving specifics about its end: end dates and/or specific conditions to be met. The clarity should drive better behavior and induce more suspendeds to try to restore harmony.

phil

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss