>>I look at this totally differently. I don't think the contributions of either have anything to do with the problem or any action which should now take place.
>>
>>The situation is basically that after online disparaging comments going back and forth, one community member(s) decided to notify another community member's employer on more than one occasion of her online activity with the clear intent that the employer take action.
>>
>>The technical merit of either party's contribution have absolutely nothing to do with it. If you were the greatest programmer on earth and you spent 24 hours a day sharing that knowledge online, that does not excuse you for informing on another to their employer and attacking their livelihood just because you didn't like what they were doing or writing online or how much time they spent doing it.
>
>There is indeed reason to consider contribution. There was talk of making Naomi MVP and removing MVP from Andy and Marcia. MVP has only to do with technical merit.
>
>How is this any different from a person on an assembly line blowing the whistle on a co-worker that takes too-long breaks? If the break-taker prods a whistle blower, the whistle blower will be more likely to react.
>
>However, all I'm saying is MVP should not be the issue here. Do unto others as they have done.


I agree with Tracy and disagree with you on this point. What does technical contribution have to do with what Andy and Marcia did to Naomi? Talking about the original act(s) there, not an idea raised months later by someone in the chatter section of the UT. No one should be defrocked as MVP, or promoted to MVP, as a result of what happened. One has nothing to do with the other IMO. What should happen, and what has clearly already happened, is people should be held accountable for their actions by their peers.