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 >> all interactions? > 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf