Re: [gentoo-project] Email from comrel -> Your recent contributions to the gentoo mailing lists

[Raymond Jennings]

With regards to confidentiality:

In My Opinion (tm), there's a reason we put people under oath when they're
witnesses at a trial.  Because what they say has an impact on someone's
fate, and this applies whether it's a civil OR a criminal procedure.  The
oath is a formal means of making them "super duper pinky swear" that what
they say is going to be the truth.

Relatedly, there is also the concept of perjury.  If someone gets caught
fibbing in court, in addition to tainting the credibility of the witness as
a whole, also gets them in VERY hot water with the criminal side of
things.  In my home state, perjury is a Class B felony.

As an amusing bit of history, if I remember my research correctly, in
ancient greco-roman times, witnesses at a trial swore an oath, literally,
on their testicles.  The penalty for perjury?  Castration.  It is said,
that this is why we call it testimony.  The point is that a witness had to
put some skin in the game if they wanted the judge to take them seriously.

Going back to the topic at hand, I personally do not think that people who
wish to offer "binding" testimony should be protected unconditionally by
confidentiality.  If someone wants to testify about something I think that
they should be prepared for a public skewering...if it turns out they were
lying their asses off.  And something needs to grant the defendant a way to
defend themselves from bad testimony.  Even if someone isn't deliberately
setting someone up for a comrel smackdown, there's always the possibility
of a misunderstanding and letting the defendant explain their side could
well shed light on the situation if nothing else.

Separate but important point:

As far as the "accused's" own confidentiality I very much favor a comrel
"defendant" having the power to grant consent to have his own information
made public.  This, I assume would at a minimum include whatever comrel
itself told the defendant.

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com>
wrote:

> For the record the only reason I stand in opposition to William is his
> deliberate and flagrant trespass on a mailing list whose administration had
> revoked his posting privileges.  The points he raised, however ill mannered
> a way he chose to do so, are in my humble opinion quite valid and I've also
> heard similiar rumors from other sources.  I don't think William's points
> should be swept under the rug as it were just because he chose a very
> anti-social method of making them.
>
> I humbly ask that any points william (or anyone else for that matter)
> makes regarding process or procedure, social or technical or otherwise, be
> evaluated in an objective manner with an eye towards the long term health
> of Gentoo as both a foundation and as a distribution our userbase depends
> on.
>
> As with the message by Daniel Campbell following the one I am currently
> quoting, I too have made observations and I also plan to take similiar
> diligence when I exercise my new voting privileges as a recent addition to
> the foundation when the trustee elections come around.
>
> We're geeks working on a linux distro, let's act like it.
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Seemant Kulleen <seemantk@×××××.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> To OFFICIAL GENTOO peeps on this list (aka my friends):
>>
>> Can we please put the guns away now?  William is in a heightened state of
>> agitation, and silencing him or adding emails like this will only stoke the
>> fires of agitation more.  Silencing him isn't going to "make the problem go
>> away."
>>
>> What I am witnessing on this list is a voice (or more) railing against an
>> impersonal bureaucracy (full of "pass the buck" -- don't like ComRel, go to
>> council; don't like council? go to council; don't like Gentoo, speak; don't
>> like Gentoo, but not like by Gentoo, don't speak).
>>
>> I would like to suggest that maybe there is a degree of correctness in
>> the angst that people have expressed about ComRel (and Council and the
>> Gentoo Bureaucracies in general).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Seemant
>>
>> PS The larger philosophical question is: Are we seriously banning people
>> as a community? What sort of community are we, in fact?
>>
>>
>> *--*
>> *Oakland Finish Up Weekend*
>> Be Amazed.  Be Amazing.
>> Get Mentored | Get Inspired | *Finish* *Up*
>> http://oaklandfinishup.com
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <
>> chithanh@g.o> wrote:
>>
>>> William L. Thomson Jr. schrieb:
>>>
>>>> So what section of the CoC was violated?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Whatever it was, you are now in violation of the rules by circumventing
>>> the ban. If you disagree with Comrel action, you need to go to the Council.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>