Re: [gentoo-project] Hiding problems, breach of Gentoo Social Contract

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote:
>
> Whose privacy, exactly, is at stake if comrel were to breach confidentiality
> on this issue?  I'd rather ask for a full list.
>

I wouldn't advocate opening this up even if nobody's privacy were at
stake, as I believe the issue goes beyond privacy.  (It tends to pit
people against each other, if accusations are false (or true) they can
become damaging to reputations, and so on.  Almost no organization I'm
aware of publishes this kind of stuff, and counterexamples are
welcome.)

However, opening up comrel evidence affects the privacy of the person
who is the subject of a comrel action, and those who told that the
information would be kept private when they submitted their
complaints/etc.

And this is a big part of why the Council decided not to open up this
evidence.  People had already been told that information would be kept
private.  And that is in my email WAY back at the beginning when I
opened this up for discussion I phrased the question in terms of what
kinds of expectations of privacy should we allow.  IMO we can't tell
people that information will be kept private, and then later change
our minds.  Now, we could have a policy that all submitted information
is public, and when somebody says, "could I tell you something in
private" Comrel could respond with, "sorry, but any information that
you give me that concerns another member of the community will be
published and I cannot promise that information will be kept private."

I still tend to favor allowing information to be submitted in private
for reasons I've already stated back in those 100+ post threads.
However, it is a debate I don't mind having.

What I don't think we can do is publish information without the
permission of those who provided it, without obtaining that
permission, which I suspect is unlikely to be forthcoming anyway.

-- 
Rich