| 1 |
On 10/06/2016 06:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> That said I think the principle of avoiding a conflict of interest is still |
| 5 |
>> a meritorious one. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Avoiding conflicts of interest is an absolute necessity. However, I |
| 8 |
> still dispute that overlapping membership between Comrel, Proctors, |
| 9 |
> Council, Trustees, etc is a conflict of interest. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Now, somebody voting on a case where they are a party would be a |
| 12 |
> conflict of interest. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> A conflict of interest exists when somebody can make a decision that |
| 15 |
> is bad for Gentoo, but good for them personally. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This isn't exactly true. A conflict of interest arises anytime someone |
| 18 |
is put in a decision making position and have competing interests with |
| 19 |
respect to the decision. Put differently, a conflict of interest arises |
| 20 |
anytime a person making a decision appears to be unable to make the |
| 21 |
decision objectively. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
In the interest of full disclosure, I am of the opinion that no person |
| 24 |
should be permitted to be a counselor and ComRel member at the same |
| 25 |
time. Even if they recuse themselves during appeals, it's one less |
| 26 |
voting counselor the appeal would otherwise have if the the recused was |
| 27 |
not a counselor in the first place. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-Nicholas Vinson |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> As I mentioned, I believe this is a minority opinion around here. |
| 32 |
> That's ok, even if you're all wrong I can still follow the policy, and |
| 33 |
> it is a bit moot in my case since I'm not in Comrel... :) |
| 34 |
> |
Archives