Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"]

Tantek Ç elik tantek at
Wed Jan 3 19:26:02 PST 2007

On 1/3/07 7:11 PM, "Christopher St John" <ckstjohn at> wrote:

> On 1/3/07, Tantek Çelik <tantek at> wrote:
>> On 1/3/07 5:07 PM, "Joe Andrieu" <joe at> wrote:
>>> For the record, I do object.
>> Joe, thanks very much for your input.  You are the only person (in email or
>> IRC) who has objected to banning Andy.
> I'm a little late, but for the record, I'd object to banning Andy as well.

Thanks for your input as well Chris.

> I've been on lists where disruptive people had to be banned, but in
> this case Andy is both well-intentioned and often (*cough* choking
> this one out, hard to form the words) has good points.
> And let's face it, compared to historical norms on, say, Usenet, Andy
> doesn't even rank.
> A small group of like-minded individuals with a common background
> who know each other personally is easy to organize. This was that,
> but it ain't no more. All for the good if it's recognized and adapted to,
> unfortunate otherwise. Enough of that, though.

You make good points.

The big difference here (in contrast to Usenet, other lists etc.) is that
this community has retained a remarkably positive and inviting tone of
discussion for quite a long time, much much more so than those other forums,
and those involved with this community very much value that and have chosen
to protect that over accommodating individuals whose method/manner of
communication is harsher, noisier etc., in spite of well-intentions, good
points, and heck, even positive contributions.

I wrote a bit more about how the microformats community is different in this
way in a post last month:


In addition, I recommend that everyone read this article by Kathy Sierra
which I believe to be quite relevant to the topic/discussion at hand:


> Peace.


Thanks Chris,


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list