From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-x52a.google.com (mail-pg1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52a]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67BB53857C50 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 21:24:53 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 67BB53857C50 Received: by mail-pg1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id t140so15345385pgb.13 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:24:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=M04Hr3C3nKlFZTuIyOD5iNedJIVT8U9Sbkx0fGQBW/k=; b=sG5Ytb2CGvOnFLKsnXVBSLpQKwew3hdRCl7RZHtsvZ7GSPwDwg66YlQk+RI3Emqzxs Gub58S9AkrBULN8OVvjzDv5/QVsXjnL5AUr6ffkGcmL96zye6MRCxFzfDPiqrnU23ITT u/gy66IvJZGFmOOaZiHNZnjRfJVSvtmzHvA5d88wTq/MCsaZYWtPwtayypOebQ/PTJIS FdPgn3seAOqsoZCGcS7CWIPr8AU7S6Y4PQXV4/H2ZZMigjxe+mL5g1Ur8dTJCf8mDXnj /6i2ntv2X+0WQwPeLe9zyMNAuV2DzU8C351tQdqxvFQVXgBcz93fi4sttQ0S1M2YlQ7g jiYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530tRxOOo+RbA9ppXL+jO60ke135D0+olUOR7lskJiWBE6eOqLO+ j/YP5ukE42sWFzk0lPpVxzjYTG9JzcK/1w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwhnm1rbRFUFdSKRu00diMT1xpYH/oRign9QtXg5BIi4Oaz1Ru8HGOpq2gkQ+FbIVsd1u+pmw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:be0f:: with SMTP id l15mr295219pgf.39.1618435492236; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:24:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.29] (65-130-82-141.slkc.qwest.net. [65.130.82.141]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b20sm281511pju.17.2021.04.14.14.24.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" References: <20210414131843.GA4138043@thyrsus.com> <093dbfde-a7b5-a55c-8a03-3e82460bce67@acm.org> From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <536f25dd-597c-0657-6c16-d73ef4c16280@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:24:50 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 21:24:54 -0000 On 4/14/2021 2:39 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:08 AM Jeff Law via Gcc wrote: >> once or twice when physical violence with threatened, but that's about >> it (aside from spammers). I don't think we want to get too deep into >> moderation and the like -- IMHO it should be an extremely rare event. >> As much as I disagree with some of the comments that have been made I >> don't think they've risen to the level of wanting/needing to ban those >> individuals from posting. > I think it's useful to observe that there are a reasonable number of > people who will refuse to participate in a project in which the > mailing list has regular personal attacks and other kinds of abusive > behavior. I know this because I've spoken with such people myself. > They simply say "that project is not for me" and move on. > > So we don't get the choice between "everyone is welcome" and "some > people are kicked off the list." We get the choice between "some > people decline to participate because it is unpleasant" and "some > people are kicked off the list." > > Given the choice of which group of people are going to participate and > which group are not, which group do we want? > > (I'm raising this as a kind of first principle. If there is a system > for banning people from the list, there are various things to discuss > as to how that might work. And I've seen it work effectively in other > communities. But if we don't agree on that first principle, there is > no point to continuing.) It's been a long time, but I think when we've banned someone it's been through the steering committee. But yes, I understand your point and it's a good one and I think we can probably find some common ground there -- but even so I think banning should be a rare event and some official outreach to the offender should happen first. jeff