> I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
> what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even
> needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context,
> rather than in the abstract?
I share your unease. But deciding to situations in context without a
set of guidelines is simply another kind of policy. I'm actually more
uneasy about ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon way
to handle it.
I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems
there is still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what
type of behavior it is meant to prevent.
I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub
issues and resolve them before we vote. Whatever issues can't get
resolved end up in a branch/fork. In the end, we vote on each of the
forks, or "no policy at all".
Does that sound reasonable?
User Interace Developer, Digital Initiatives
Princeton University Library