5 Nov
2013
5 Nov
'13
11:17 a.m.
temporary banning is the way to go: then first one person engages him in
conversation, then two together, then the whole group: explaining the
reasons etc.
then if his idea of what is the right thing to do continues to disagree in
either gist or methodology .... i would think a mutually agreed upon
parting of the ways... in my fairy tale world
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)clear.net> wrote:
That having been said, I also would stand by
Marc's actions. There should
be some way to put a temporary suspension on an email address in the
immediate term to stop a barrage of emails as a cooling off mechanism.
I think it's worth acknowledging how thankless a job running a listserv
can be and thank Marc for doing it for as long as he has, with very little
help, and while being admirably responsive. I've never done that job
myself, and don't envy the position.
On Oct 31, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)clear.net> wrote:
I'll 4th & 5th that.
I was trying to direct Giovanni's enthusiasm to be most useful on the
Sudo-radio list. I still think that would be the most appropriate move.
It is in fact true that this is a huge and awesome open window in spectrum
allocation and it would be a shame to miss it. How Giovanni has tried to go
about convincing everyone of that has clearly been counter-productive. His
promise to put together a brief note about how to register before Nov. 14
and what it takes to do that - would be very useful information.
I dare say though that if annoying is a criteria for being banned on this
list - as a subjective matter many would be on thin ice. (No offense.
Myself included.)
I think that ad hoc unilateral banning is an overextension of the
individual power any Sudo-er should have. Something that was mentioned
could justify removal from the Board. I would suggest we have more than one
person with the power to ban people from our mailing list. And that those
people be charged with doing do according to some predictable and
ascertainable policy.
sent from eddan.com
On Oct 31, 2013, at 7:47 AM, "Danny Spitzberg" <stationaery(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I wholeheartedly 2nd, 3rd the sentiment and suggestion to have a
conversation (via email if not IRL) with Giovanni to tame his exuberance
and use the list more judiciously.
"Banning" without first taking initiative to educate and include in
understanding expecte practices is straight-up draconian -- eliminating not
solving the problem.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
--
*Be seeing you.*
Banning someone for being annoying is something
you guys will probably
have to do often and you should definitely not do it.
As far as I can tell, what makes NB dis functional is their commitment to
come one come all. "All" is not a great group, necessarily. If you are
trying to build a club that is self-governing, it has to have people in it
whose judgment you trust. There's nothing wrong with that I think.
On Thursday, October 31, 2013, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote:
>
> IMHO that seems excessively harsh. Banning someone from the list is
> similar enough to banning them from the space, that it seems to me such
> things entail a collective action by the community rather than an
> administrative action or unilateral action by e.g. a list admin or someone
> with keys to the door. Spambots and overt criminals are one thing, but
> people who are merely annoying in some way are another.
>
> Really: With all the talk about anarcho-this and collectivist-that and
> consensus-the-other-thing, seems to me that unilaterally banning someone
> for being merely annoying is a pretty major contradiction to core
> principles.
>
> If you or someone else wants to ban someone from the list or the space,
> aside from emergencies such as bots and criminals, there are
> dispute-resolution processes in place for that.
>
> So I'm going to stick my neck out and ask that you reinstate him on the
> list, and initiate the use of whatever collective processes exist for
> resolving the issues you have with him.
>
> -G
>
>
> =====
>
>
> On 13-10-31-Thu 2:54 AM, Marc Juul wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:24 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <
> g2g-public01(a)att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> What happened? I thought the "john re" address had been captured or
>> spoofed by a spammer, but "giovanni_re" was a legit user, most
recently
>> discussing the FCC application. Did the _giovanni_re" identity turn out to
>> be some kind of wolf in sheep's clothing? -G
>>
>
> He was banned for spamming the list about the FCC thing. Nine emails in
> nine different threads over the course of a few hours about a project that
> he has stated that he himself is not willing to work on. That is not
> reasonable. He also showed up for the sudo room and counter culture labs
> meetings and took an unreasonable amount of the community's time trying to
> push this project onto others. It appears that he has been doing similar
> things at noisebridge and other tech groups in the bay area.
>
> In addition: Starting and running an LPFM station is no minor
> undertaking, and Giovanni has continued his attempts to push this on people
> even in the face of little interest. This might have all been fine if he
> was actually spearheading the project, but he is not.
>
> --
> Marc
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss