Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Matthew Thode
<prometheanfire@g.o> wrote:
>
> I tend to agree that comrel should not police this particular list.

I think you were just stating an opinion here and not announcing any
kind of official policy, correct?

That aside, I'd suggest that you consider the implications if this were policy:

1.  Is the CoC still in force on this list?  If not, are there ANY
standards of behavior in force, and if so where are they defined?
2.  If somebody were to have a concern about violations of any
standards in force (CoC or otherwise), where should they direct these
concerns?
3.  Who will deal with any concerns that are raised, and what
processes will they follow, and what recourse, if any, is there if
there is disagreement with the outcome?
4.  What expectations of privacy/secrecy should anybody have if they
raise a concern?

IMO you're going to quickly find that if the CoC doesn't apply then
you're just going to have to invent another CoC to take its place, or
deal with pandemonium.  Likewise if Comrel isn't the body enforcing
the -nfp CoC then you're just going to have to invent another Comrel
to take its place.

If the concern is that the CoC is broken in some way, wouldn't it make
more sense to fix it everywhere than to have two?  Likewise, if the
concern is that Comrel is broken in some way, wouldn't it make more
sense to fix it than to create another?

If the concern is that you're not sure you trust the individuals in
the current system, why would somebody else have more reason to trust
the individuals in the new system, if the only thing changing are the
names?  If the changes are instead to make the process better, then
why wouldn't we want to apply the better process everywhere?

-- 
Rich