Re: [gentoo-project] Representation of Gentoo on third-party platforms

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 3:47 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure your experience bears out. I've seen exclusions in
> the time I've been involved with Gentoo, and on very debatable grounds.

Such as?  I don't claim to be privy to ever comrel action, only those
which are appealed, and there haven't been many of those.  If somebody
is so convinced that they won't prevail on appeal that they don't even
bother, then it is hard to be sympathetic to the claim that they've
done nothing wrong.

Note that comrel generally doesn't publish the grounds they have for
taking action.  Others might do so, but Comrel does not comment as to
whether the grounds being posted are in fact the whole story.
Certainly the targets of comrel actions should be getting the full
story, and if not they can certainly ask the Council to step in.
However, I've yet to see a case where the grounds for Comrel action
wasn't told to the person involved, and generally the Council weighs
whether those are sufficient grounds for action.

It doesn't make for great PR all the time, but it is basically what
just about any other responsible organizations does in these sorts of
situations.  I can't remember the last time I saw somebody fired from
my workplace bragging about the real reason why it was done.
Inevitably it is blamed on some kind of minor disagreement.  And
companies generally just ignore this stuff as long as it doesn't go to
court, and it rarely does, because the court isn't going to keep it
private and you can't sue the court for publishing a bunch of
documents accusing you of doing horrible things.  You certainly can
sue organizations that publish such things outside of a court, which
is one of the reasons why nobody else does it, and we shouldn't
either.

-- 
Rich