1 |
What about the whole "hold harmless" things that often pop up? |
2 |
|
3 |
I think that, as a volunteer organization it's not unreasonable for |
4 |
the foundation to have waivers in place. |
5 |
|
6 |
Honestly, I think transparency is good overall, it helps the offender |
7 |
understand their misdeeds. |
8 |
|
9 |
If there are any legal risks then maybe new developers should be |
10 |
agreeing to not sue the foundation. |
11 |
|
12 |
My two cents. |
13 |
|
14 |
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
15 |
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:07 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
16 |
>> On 13/04/18 22:57, Rich Freeman wrote [excerpted]: |
17 |
>>> I find it ironic that you're suggesting that the folks who disagree |
18 |
>>> with you leave, considering that this whole debate was started by a |
19 |
>>> bunch of people who basically felt that nobody should really be kicked |
20 |
>>> out for anything. |
21 |
>>> |
22 |
>> The problem stems from the fact that there is (perceived to be) a |
23 |
>> problem with the wrong kinds of people *being* ejected or disciplined, |
24 |
>> whereas some people who *should* be ejected or disciplined, are not. And |
25 |
>> obviously so. There is no even-handed or transparent application of |
26 |
>> whatever "rules" are being applied, and this is seen to be unjust and |
27 |
>> unacceptable ... |
28 |
>> |
29 |
> |
30 |
> Obviously I don't want to rehash this whole debate, but applying the |
31 |
> rules in a transparent way seems to be impossible without creating |
32 |
> legal risks. I've yet to hear anything to the contrary from the |
33 |
> Trustees/etc. So, it comes down to either trusting people to do this |
34 |
> well, or not doing it at all. I'm certainly supportive of calls to |
35 |
> try to improve transparency where this is possible, such as with |
36 |
> anonymized stats published by comrel. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> FWIW I've actually heard complaints at all levels within Gentoo about |
39 |
> double standards (coming from the top on down). It is probably fair |
40 |
> to say that bad deeds can be offset by good deeds to a significant |
41 |
> degree around here, even if those deeds are of a different nature. |
42 |
> So, somebody with a strong negative technical/non-technical/social |
43 |
> contribution could be tolerated if they have a correspondingly strong |
44 |
> positive social/non-technical/technical contribution. I've seen lots |
45 |
> of debate on both sides as to whether that is good or bad, but there |
46 |
> are certainly consequences for being too liberal with booting people |
47 |
> out, or keeping them around. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> I haven't heard many appeals during my time on the Council, but from |
50 |
> the ones I have seen there were usually very good reasons for those |
51 |
> who were asked to leave, and those same people were generally not very |
52 |
> honest with the community about the reasons they were given for being |
53 |
> booted. One form of transparency I have suggested is that when |
54 |
> disciplinary actions are given the person being disciplined should be |
55 |
> given an explanation for why the action is being taken, and that at |
56 |
> their option that explanation would be made public verbatim. I've |
57 |
> seen Debian do this and I thought it was a good way to balance |
58 |
> privacy/transparency/risk. The person being disciplined can at their |
59 |
> option keep the whole matter quiet, or they can have it publicized in |
60 |
> an official way. However, if they decide to publish their own account |
61 |
> of events while denying Gentoo permission to publish its side, then |
62 |
> those listening will probably be skeptical that they're getting the |
63 |
> full story. Since Gentoo would not make any public statements without |
64 |
> permission from the person impacted there would be little risk of |
65 |
> legal repercussions. |
66 |
> |
67 |
> -- |
68 |
> Rich |
69 |
> |