On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 04:45:54PM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
We are not here to talk about other instances. This is about one instance. There does need to be further conversation about the AA-WG community and the list.
Agree.
There is quite a lot of material that did not make it to the list because of the good offices of the NCC. Tobias and I asked them to take interim moderation measures. The question after that was to accept all mails or put in a ban, due to the continued issues we went for a ban.
That is not what I call the spirit of openness and transparency. In fact, "based on seekrit information we have and you don't" is pretty much the antithesis of that.
Ridiculing and criticising are two very, very different things.
Criticising by ridiculing is in fact its very own art form - satire, particularly political satire. Punishing and/or censoring that is an attribute of a community or society that I do not very much care to live in (again!).
We have never suggested that founded and well argued criticism shouldn't be allowed. Repeated offensive behaviour is very different.
Something that is, alas, pretty much a feature of the entire list. rgds, Sascha Luck
Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG