[opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

[Soft Linden]

Absolutely not. Anyone who governance clears as having been wrongly
accused is off the hook, and accounts even get noted that way so it's
the first thing in front of any Linden who brings up an account.

Don't worry that the Viewer Directory's going to become so automated
that human evaluation falls out of the picture. There just aren't that
many projects.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
<tigrospottystripes at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Btw, talking about checkered histories, hypotheticly, if someone has had
> their account suspended for a time because of unfounded accusations of
> being underage, would that prevent the person from being authorized to
> offer a client that connects to LL's grid?
>
> On 27/2/2010 01:29, Soft Linden wrote:
>> I know the question of how to resolve a ban when multiple people are
>> behind the viewer is in legal's pile. I'm surprised it didn't make the
>> FAQ, so I'll send a reminder about that ambiguity.
>>
>> There are checkered histories for some existing viewer developers,
>> yes. It's not our policy to talk about specific governance issues --
>> we might not even be allowed to do so. But in the general case, people
>> didn't have healthy project teams to attach to in the past. Now that
>> those exist, we hope that's the new place that curious people go.
>>
>> The era of second chances for serious violations is definitely over,
>> though. There's no question on this. Part of the reason for having
>> legal draft this policy is so that in the future, legal can be
>> directly involved where we see repeated willful violations.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Jesse Barnett <jessesa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thank you for the hard work there Soft. It answers all of the questions I
>>> have except for this section:
>>>
>>> "What is the meaning of the Viewer Directory eligibility requirement that
>>> "your Second Life accounts must be in good standing, must not be suspended,
>>> and must never have been permanently banned or terminated"?
>>>
>>> This requirement means that if on or after the policy's publication date, on
>>> February 23, 2010, any of your Second Life accounts are not in good
>>> standing, are suspended, or are permanently banned or terminated, then you
>>> and your viewers are ineligible for the Viewer Directory."
>>>
>>> So someone that has had an account banned is not eligible for the directory.
>>>
>>> What about a team with one or more members who have had their accounts
>>> banned?
>>>
>>> In case of a team dev with a support@ email going to the team and meeting
>>> the support requirements, then who's contact info has to be supplied?
>>>
>>> And if a team is eligible then couldn't a single person or small team just
>>> replace the front person to be eligible?
>>>
>>> In other words; Being a dev requires a very inquisitive mind. This same
>>> trait can get a person into trouble when they first enter our world. You do
>>> have some people who have gone to tremendous lengths to help the Second Life
>>> community at large who have been suspended at some point when they were
>>> first here. If they are helping then why the limitation?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
>> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
>> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
>>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkuIpHsACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmV9WQCeIlAWNVRTRar/XhNf4zNTfsBs
> WawAnAo7Yd2CxZzQkXTQ0IhOhus0mcfN
> =FUKa
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
>