[sudo-discuss] temporary email suspensions

Tue Nov 5 11:17:33 PST 2013

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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at gmail.com>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.
>>>
>>> -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 at 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 at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>

-- 
*Be seeing you.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20131105/392bd853/attachment.html>