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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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" <email@example.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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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.
=====On 13-10-31-Thu 2:54 AM, Marc Juul wrote:On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:24 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <email@example.com> 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? -GHe 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.
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss mailing list