On 4/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
A clearer-than-it-would-be example: imagine there is a good-faith contributor who just causes unbelivable amounts of strife. They mean well, they make good-faith contributions, they haven't done anything *wrong* per se...
How would you define "good faith" in this context? I would say that if a contributor continues to do "X" after several good faith "please don't do X" requests from reasonable people, then that person is no longer a "good faith contributor" and any of his contributions with "X" in them are not "good faith contributions".
Therefore, Arbcom is not being "unfair" to such a person by ruling against him.