On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:

Lilli Iliev, 29/07/2018 20:04:
> One reliable way to silence people when they experience harassment as
> well as keeping others from speaking out, is to have them experience how
> other, non-involved people, would immediately have an opinion on what
> happened and judge the case or the person in question.

I'll note that this is valid both ways. So, to be consistent, you
shouldn't jump at the conclusion that the outcome of the case was
correct, just as you are asking not to jump to the conclusion it was wrong.

True. But for privacy and other reasons, it is impractical to make friendly-space violations a matter of public debate, so we cannot resolve this the wiki way. Instead, we *have* to trust the people entrusted with enforcing the policy that they are careful, sensible, and competent.

It is still possible, of course, that they would make an occasional mistake. But we *still* can't turn a given action (or inaction) into a matter of public debate. We still have to trust the team.

What we can do as a community is debate *principles*, i.e. the policy itself. If a significant opinion forms in favor of adding, changing, or removing some elements from the policy, that could be input for the team(s) enforcing the policy.