On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Tobias Scherbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Mark Loeser wrote: > > I personally don't see why they should be allowed to stay part of our > > communication channels where they have caused problems bad enough to get > > them retired. With that being said, I think the same technical issues > > come into play here as with banning someone from "Gentoo" entirely. > > I agree on this. I'd limit this ban to channels where they have caused > problems though (or channels which they've been taking part of), banning > them on each and every #gentoo-* channel is just an unnecessary overhead > imho. And for the given technical restrictions they'd be banned as > suggested, when they are coming back using another IP or another nick > the same rules would apply as for every other user - warning and ban if > they're misbehaving. > > > I am not sure how we would be able to enforce this across the board for > > forcefully retired developers. > > It's not really possible without some huge work overhead to fully ban > someone - therefore given limitations as described above would apply. > Everything else is not doable from my pov. > > Tobias > Although it isn't feasible in practice, such a policy would allow us to defenestrate forcefully retired developers that keep coming back to mailing lists or channels with the same attitude that got then kicked, without having to resort to long process and waste of our human resources. We wouldn't have to go through the same process over and over again: if somebody was retired and keeps doing the same things as when was a developer, then people in charge of channels or mailing lists might take instant action as they find it necessary. If they get a new attitude after retired, I'm sure that the people in charge will not take the extra work to ban them for nothing. My R$ 0.02. Pilla
