| 1 |
On 18-04-16 17:25:52, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Matthew Thode |
| 3 |
> <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I tend to agree that comrel should not police this particular list. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I think you were just stating an opinion here and not announcing any |
| 8 |
> kind of official policy, correct? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Correct. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> That aside, I'd suggest that you consider the implications if this were policy: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> 1. Is the CoC still in force on this list? If not, are there ANY |
| 16 |
> standards of behavior in force, and if so where are they defined? |
| 17 |
> 2. If somebody were to have a concern about violations of any |
| 18 |
> standards in force (CoC or otherwise), where should they direct these |
| 19 |
> concerns? |
| 20 |
> 3. Who will deal with any concerns that are raised, and what |
| 21 |
> processes will they follow, and what recourse, if any, is there if |
| 22 |
> there is disagreement with the outcome? |
| 23 |
> 4. What expectations of privacy/secrecy should anybody have if they |
| 24 |
> raise a concern? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> IMO you're going to quickly find that if the CoC doesn't apply then |
| 27 |
> you're just going to have to invent another CoC to take its place, or |
| 28 |
> deal with pandemonium. Likewise if Comrel isn't the body enforcing |
| 29 |
> the -nfp CoC then you're just going to have to invent another Comrel |
| 30 |
> to take its place. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> If the concern is that the CoC is broken in some way, wouldn't it make |
| 33 |
> more sense to fix it everywhere than to have two? Likewise, if the |
| 34 |
> concern is that Comrel is broken in some way, wouldn't it make more |
| 35 |
> sense to fix it than to create another? |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> If the concern is that you're not sure you trust the individuals in |
| 38 |
> the current system, why would somebody else have more reason to trust |
| 39 |
> the individuals in the new system, if the only thing changing are the |
| 40 |
> names? If the changes are instead to make the process better, then |
| 41 |
> why wouldn't we want to apply the better process everywhere? |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
What I'd like to see (not fully thought out and all) is the following. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
CoC is not enforced on the list by comrel, but comrel can report what |
| 47 |
they beleive to be CoC violations to the Trustees. The Trustees can |
| 48 |
take action if they believe necessary. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
While I don't believe that the nfp list needs to be available as a |
| 51 |
communication forum for foundation members, it would be nice to have it |
| 52 |
available. I suppose some statement would need to be made as to the |
| 53 |
purpose (role) the nfp list plays, stating that it is not a right but a |
| 54 |
privlige to post to it. One that can be revoked at any time for any |
| 55 |
reason (this phrase because legal shit sucks). |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives