Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal

[M. J. Everitt]

On 15/01/17 20:02, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
>> 2. Transparency
>> ---------------
>> Any disciplinary action should be announced by the team in a manner
>> specific to the appropriate media where the measure applies.
>> The announcement should be visible to all users of that media,
>> and contains:
>>
>> - the name of the user to whom the measure applies,
>>
>> - the description and length of the measure applied.
> I think most of your proposal is reasonable, except for this point.
>
> I'd prefer that transparency be done in an anonymous way.  I'm fine
> with the individuals being affected by a disciplinary action
> voluntarily choosing to allow this information to be divulged.
> However, if somebody is the subject of discipline they shouldn't be
> turned into public examples for a few reasons:
>
> 1.  It makes them hard to rejoin the community after their
> ban/whatever is over, because now they have a public reputation.
> 2.  It can damage somebody's public reputation, which could affect
> their ability to work on non-Gentoo projects or even for them to find
> employment.
> 3.  Because of #2, it tends to force the subject of an action to
> defend their reputation in public, which then leads to arguments/etc.
> 4.  Also because of #2, it may lead the subject of an action to defend
> their reputation using the courts, which can become an expensive
> proposition for all involved.
> 5.  #3-4 will tend to render moot your suggestion to keep the details
> of infractions private, since it will probably tend to come out in all
> the arguing.  Or, if it doesn't then all that argument doesn't
> actually serve any productive purpose since there are no facts
> involved.
>
> If the concern is abuse then let those who feel they were the victims
> of abuse be the ones to choose whether they make it a public issue.
> And by all means publish anonymous information about the volume of
> actions so that we can collectively judge whether it is happening too
> often/little/etc.
>
I respectfully disagree.

If a persons actions have escalated to an extent where disciplinary
action becomes necessary, it should have become patently obvious by this
point that something has gone badly wrong, and that the consequences of
this are that you may be publicly named and shamed. Where there may be
some legal angle, I feel there may be cause to anonymise until legal
advice has been sought, but in that event, you may not wish to publish
anything until you know where you stand anyway. In the rare event that
an error occurs, a public apology may be the correct course of action to
rectify any public disclosure that may have previously occurred. This
too, should function as a check-and-balance that you're doing The Right
Thing(tm).

If it is deemed immediate and escalated action is necessary as the First
step, I think you're going to be seeking advice anyway, and it should be
apparent that such action is only desirable in very rare and severe
cases. Again, the knowledge that you may have to quickly backtrack and
perform a public apology should function as a check-and-balance.

Increased transparency and the fear of real consequences to your actions
should be an adequate deterrent to anyone thinking of stirring the pot.
It works elsewhere, why should Gentoo be such a special case?!