#winehq admin abuse

[Jan Zerebecki]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 08:06:01PM -0700, Jonathan Challinger wrote:
> I'm not going to continue this. This is my last message concerning this
> argument.

> I'm done with
> wine, and now I'm done discussing its community's serious flaws.

This is sad, after all a community is as good as the participants
make it.

> > On Thursday 16 August 2007 20:27:04 Jonathan Challinger wrote:
> > > Jan Zerebecki, I'd be happy to help, but how? I could develop some
> > > guidelines and rules for admins to follow,

Though formulating proper communication guidelines is some work
(one can borrow text and wisdom from projects that may have
something like this; freenode, fedora, ubuntu, gentoo, debian
come to mind), the real work is discussing it, asking everyone
whose comments matter and getting everyone to agree.

> > > but then what? How would they be enforced?

Obviously then the people with the authority will support the
needed enforcement. But IMHO the best atmosphere is when nobody
needs to wield their powers.

On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 08:06:25AM -0500, Jeremy White wrote:
> he certainly should not be banned now.

Done. In the future please don't discuss policy, rules or
problems with ops/admins on #winehq but e.g. on #winehq-social (
unless we decide in the future that this is on-topic in #winehq ).

> a ban is inappropriate except
> in the most extreme cases, in my opinion.

I think so, too. But others may have other opinions. As far as I
understood Vitaliy Margolens position is that anyone who
questions a admin/op should get banned.

We have #winehq-social where anything can be discussed and nobody
gets banned (unless they do advertisement or/and malware).

Another problem is that we don't have a rule for when/how to unban.

So if we could agree on rules for when and how to ban and unban,
it would be a good start and our community should become a bit
more pleasant.


Jan