People who want to abuse and troll will keep on doing it, they'll cloak, they'll use other servers to connect with a different IP, they'll create new email addresses on gmail or yahoo, etc...
There is also different ways to troll. Some are blatant, some not easy to detect. Different people have different opinion what is trolling, etc.
This is why Pascal is correct and the voting thing you've proposed is completely doomed to fail. Those wanting a voting system are the ones who wants to have the power to do something, but they dont have the merit. Those who will step up to be "moderators" are often the least indicated to be "moderators" (for politesse, I will not point examples in the past, but trust me I could). First, with all that you want to force an infrastructure to be created (your vote out system), and who is goin to program, design and test it? I would prefer people investing their time in the distro, instead. When I see people proposing "lets vote" and stuff in things like this I can not help to think that what you really want is to impose your own will by voting manipulation. Most things in places like this are taken by consensus, and not by voting. Sensible decisions comes by consensus, not by voting. In all media there are already "moderators" and people in charge. As I've said earlier, solving problems is all about solving problems. We can create a code of conduct, guideline, bylaws, constitutions, improvement day task lists, but they are going to be piece of internetic papers if people are not going to act and enforce on that. And from what I know, things are getting enforced. Let the people do their jobs.
I would call that moderators. Guys that have authority to give warning, or ban those that ignore warnings.
That already exist, you dont need to vote for people to be that.
How to do that in timely manner, without access to mail list server, is another question?
The list already have a moderator. The irc channel have operators. The forums have moderators, etc etc etc.
There is few more: Who can be moderator?
Nobody, it shouldnt be the most democratic system where everybody has equal rights. It should be a meritocracy, and in a meritocracy you dont need to vote
Where moderators can exchange experience? They already do in the appropriate media
Who oversees their activity? Nobody, people have already too much work to do to oversee something or somebody. The guys appointed by meritocracy dont need that.
Who is solving disputes between moderators? Nobody, in a meritocracy that's usually not needed, people are sensible enough to get to a common conclusion without needing to vote.
How user can verify that he/she is warned by moderator? They already do in the appropriate media
And just to end: Federico, I've heard three or four times gnome people complaining about irc in the list. Wouldnt it be more appropriate to complain to the operators of the channel right when it happened, and giving the names and logs, so he can do something? I believe that would work the best for that case. Best regards Marcio Ferreira --- Druid --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org