1 |
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. |
2 |
<wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 11:26:29 AM EST Alec Warner wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>> What I think is actually true is that there are some risks the current |
6 |
>> board sees, and they (we?, I am on the board after all) see one way to |
7 |
>> reduce the risk is by this joining. I think we should also be open to |
8 |
>> evaluating the risks and seeking other avenues to mitigate them. |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> I think, speaking in general terms, one risk is the following. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> 1) When a community member feels harmed by the community, they can file a |
13 |
>> suit. They can sue individuals, or they can sue the Foundation. They cannot |
14 |
>> sue "Comrel" for example, because Comrel is not an entity. They can sue the |
15 |
>> individuals that compose comrel, or they can sue the Foundation. |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> 2) If they sue the Foundation, we are worried that a 100% hands-off |
18 |
>> solution is going to be an effective defense. In the current scheme, the |
19 |
>> Foundation has no real control over the operation of Comrel. I think there |
20 |
>> is a lack of confidence that this defense is sufficient to dismiss a suit |
21 |
>> though. |
22 |
|
23 |
First, I agree with Alec and do think that it is important that our |
24 |
processes be legally defensible. I don't think the Trustees can be |
25 |
left completely in the dark about what is going on. There are a lot |
26 |
of ways that can be accomplished, but I don't support 100% hands-off. |
27 |
|
28 |
> |
29 |
> A defamation suit is not out of the question if someone feels actions taken |
30 |
> against them have caused great harm to their reputation. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> For example; |
33 |
> In my case being painted as an outcast could have implications in obtaining |
34 |
> jobs, etc. It would be interesting to see how a court would rule on someones |
35 |
> volunteer actions, perceived conduct by others, having effect on their ability |
36 |
> to make a living, Based on how others have made them out to be, an outcast, |
37 |
> etc, tarnishing their reputation publicly. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Something many seem to ignore or overlook. Comrel or any action taken against |
40 |
> someone could have serious impacts on that individuals career. Their ability |
41 |
> to make a living, obtain jobs, contracts, etc. |
42 |
|
43 |
And this is part of why I don't think Comrel actions should be |
44 |
announced publicly, or when people do have a need to know the amount |
45 |
of information given is minimal. Somebody has left Gentoo is probably |
46 |
all they truly need to know, and if the person who has left wants to |
47 |
divulge more they can do so, but Gentoo should be off the hook in that |
48 |
case. |
49 |
|
50 |
So, in the hypothetical case of somebody who announces to the world on |
51 |
a public list that they're an outcast, and the distro doesn't speak |
52 |
specifically to that persons case but only discusses general policy, |
53 |
then there really isn't much to complain about. If the person was |
54 |
concerned about their reputation, then they shouldn't have announced |
55 |
to the world that they're an outcast. |
56 |
|
57 |
If Gentoo is broadcasting stuff like that to the world then sure there |
58 |
is potentially risk, depending on the accuracy of what is being said, |
59 |
and a bunch of other things as well most likely. Better to just stay |
60 |
clear of that. |
61 |
|
62 |
Certainly at my workplace when people are dismissed the company |
63 |
doesn't comment on why. People are simply told that somebody is |
64 |
leaving. If somebody calls for a reference, the company policy is |
65 |
that the only thing that gets divulged is their employment dates, |
66 |
and/or salary, and only if the former employee requests either. |
67 |
|
68 |
-- |
69 |
Rich |