The premise of the post I replied to is that the mailing list moderation is currently not great and that it allows people to be abusive. It suggest that we shou

The premise of the post I replied to is that the mailing list moderation is currently not great and that it allows people to be abusive. It suggest that we should crowdsource this moderation. I assume they think this will lower the burden. I myself do not think that this is the actual problem. I think the actual problem is that many FOSS communities have fostered an idea that cracking down on certain types of behavior is censorship. Of course they might all agree to ban somebody who is saying certain well known explicit words or being really really aggressive, but there's a lot of behavior that I would consider bannable but they do not. I'm trying to avoid mentioning specific cases because I don't wanna either reopen old wounds or cause another similar dustup. I can say that it reminds me a lot of the really old post about the 5 geek social fallacies https://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-fallacies/ https://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-fallacies/ In particular social fallacy #1 Obviously we're not talking about geek culture here (in general anyways). After rereading it, I saw something else that we actually do a see a lot even today. This in particular has happened on many a mailing list, including the ones I'm not specifically mentioning >> <SNIP> when nothing smacking of social selectiveness can be discussed in public, people inevitably begin to organize activities in secret. </SNIP> Well-known annoyances get tolerated for years, and the people who do the work start moving their discussions to bug trackers, irc, or in personal emails to avoid interacting with them.