Excerpts from Dave CROCKER on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 09:25:14AM -0800:
Scott Brim wrote:
I see your point, but does it warrant a perpetual irrevocable ban on
When someone demonstrates a permanent pattern of disruptive behavior,
with no counter-balancing pattern of useful contribution, their presence
is purely a distraction. Ignoring a distraction is preferable, but some
distractions cannot be reasonably ignored; they force themselves on us.
They constantly cost us wasteful effort; in the aggregate -- over time,
and across the community -- quite a lot of effort.
OK, you are looking at cumulative disruption. Previously you had just
referred to this one occurrence. Even if you think this one deserves
banishment, I still believe (1) you should go through the established
warning process, and
Such folk warrant banning. Permanently and completely.
(2) a permanent irrevocable ban on all possible means of communication
is way over the top.
Just remember, "dogs bark, but the caravan rolls on".
Ietf mailing list