| 1 |
On 10/03/2016 01:07 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Montag, 3. Oktober 2016, 18:00:59 schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.: |
| 3 |
>> On Friday, September 30, 2016 8:59:15 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> The Issue |
| 5 |
>>> Recently there has been some questioning of whether we have the right |
| 6 |
>>> balance of privacy in Comrel disputes. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> Anonymous stats can be produced and released without releasing any private |
| 9 |
>> information. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> OK here's some stats: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I became Comrel lead in September 2014 (ca 2 years ago). Since then, i.e. for |
| 15 |
> the duration of 2 years, there were (the numbers are from memory / estimated): |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> * cases where a full comrel vote about disciplinary action was held: 2 |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
Not knowing how other projects fare, but 1 major incident doesn't sound |
| 20 |
like ComRel is inundated with situations requiring heavy handed action. |
| 21 |
> * cases where comrel got involved in recruiting: 1 (hi there) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> * cases where a short penalty according to the code of conduct rules was |
| 24 |
> handed out (requires 2 team members to agree): ~ 5-10 |
| 25 |
> (I.e., 48h bugzilla ban or 7day mailing list ban.) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
Again, given our user base, a minor incident every two to four months |
| 28 |
doesn't sound bad to me. |
| 29 |
> * cases where someone had a chat ("this wasn't so great, please think about |
| 30 |
> doing it better next time") or sent an e-mail: ~ 10-15, maybe more |
| 31 |
Same as previous statement. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> * cases where someone was shouting for comrel to intervene: far too many |
| 34 |
> (Somehow the ability of people to solve interpersonal problems on their own |
| 35 |
> seems to get lost. Also, this is a really good point why teams should have an |
| 36 |
> active team lead- who is the first point of contact and knows the involved |
| 37 |
> persons better.) |
| 38 |
What degree of transparency is the reporter given at this point |
| 39 |
regarding how their incident will (not?) be handled? I feel like it is |
| 40 |
probably hard for someone to assess when their situation is so far |
| 41 |
devolved that it necessitates escalation. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Overall, I find your stats, though informal, somewhat reassuring, Seems |
| 44 |
that we have a fairly low incidence of action being taken and/or needing |
| 45 |
to be taken by ComRel, which is good in the respect that it means that |
| 46 |
they likely aren't over-acting. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
On the other hand, the last section of your post makes me a little |
| 49 |
uncomfortable. Given my experiences with ComRel, I wonder how many |
| 50 |
incidents could or should have been escalated. See my previous comment |
| 51 |
re: transparency and subsequent comment regarding status updates. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Per the previous statement in this thread about whether reporting is |
| 54 |
mandatory, is there a way for an individual to ensure that their inquiry |
| 55 |
to ComRel is being forwarded to the body itself rather than handled and |
| 56 |
potentially dismissed without official reporting/escalation? For |
| 57 |
example, if I message a member of ComRel because I'm having some issue, |
| 58 |
do I have any guarantee of it reaching ComRel, itself? Additionally |
| 59 |
(and probably more critically) is there a way for me to check on the |
| 60 |
status (both initial and as a case is progressing)? I would imagine |
| 61 |
without some feedback mechanism, a person experiencing conflict that |
| 62 |
warrants ComRel intervention might feel that their situation is being |
| 63 |
ignored or not handled with an appropriate speed. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
-- |
| 66 |
NP-Hardass |
Archives