[anti-abuse-wg] WG Chair Mailing List Decision

Sascha,

Sascha Luck [ml] wrote on 16/02/2017 14:40:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:05:19PM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>> This morning Tobias and I asked the NCC to take the very unusual
>> step, effectively immediately, of removing the person behind
>> svenk at xs4all.nl from the Anti-Abuse WG mailing list. This was
>> not done lightly, rather it was done to safeguard this
>> community.
>
> Safeguard it from what? Non-approved opinions? Please note that,
> as a notional member of said community, I was not asked whether I
> wanted to be "safeguarded". Thank you, Daddy, for looking out for
> my well-being but I'm old enough to look after that myself...

This isn't just about you. It's about making sure that the community 
comes across as welcoming to all of the various stakeholders. Tobias and 
I (as well as others, but the decision was ours) felt that Sven did not 
in any way contribute to the community or that welcome. Yes, we've had 
less than ideal conversations here before, but it never went to the 
level seen recently.

>> It is not a place to insult, to decry, to repeatedly state the
>> same point over and over
>
> While I agree, there are some others guilty of that, viz. the
> repeated accusation that ISPs (and the RIPE NCC)  are criminals
> (or at least in league with such) etc. Seemingly, they have yet
> to be banned from this list.

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.

>> or to discriminate against other members of the community based
>> on their race, creed, gender or sexual preferences.
>
> A quick browse (and thanks for making me have to do that)through
> the relevant contributions has not thrown up any obvious evidence
> of any such statements. If you have any that I might have missed,
> I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I think, an apology for what
> certainly reads like a gratuitious accusation is more than
> appropriate.

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.

>> If we cannot maintain a list upon which reasonable discussion
>> can take place, then it leaves our community in a weakened
>> state.
>
> Agreed. So, if censorship be it, please remove all the other
> trolls, including their sockpuppets, from this list. I suspect it
> will be a very quiet one after that and perhaps deservedly so.
>
> If nobody is to be allowed to ridicule or criticise the "other"
> side - and the contributor has a valid point, however annoyingly
> presented, it is not a "community" but a "cult".

Ridiculing and criticising are two very, very different things. We have 
never suggested that founded and well argued criticism shouldn't be 
allowed. Repeated offensive behaviour is very different.

Brian
Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG