1 |
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:29 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> |
4 |
> wrote: |
5 |
> > On 13/04/18 23:25, Rich Freeman wrote: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> >> One form of transparency I have suggested is that when |
8 |
> >> disciplinary actions are given the person being disciplined should be |
9 |
> >> given an explanation for why the action is being taken, and that at |
10 |
> >> their option that explanation would be made public verbatim. I've |
11 |
> >> seen Debian do this and I thought it was a good way to balance |
12 |
> >> privacy/transparency/risk. The person being disciplined can at their |
13 |
> >> option keep the whole matter quiet, or they can have it publicized in |
14 |
> >> an official way. However, if they decide to publish their own account |
15 |
> >> of events while denying Gentoo permission to publish its side, then |
16 |
> >> those listening will probably be skeptical that they're getting the |
17 |
> >> full story. Since Gentoo would not make any public statements without |
18 |
> >> permission from the person impacted there would be little risk of |
19 |
> >> legal repercussions. |
20 |
> >> |
21 |
> > I think that if this is the process, people are more likely to buy into |
22 |
> > it, and accept that if that's the way it works, they can take it or |
23 |
> > leave it - and the risk is more theirs than that of the organisation. I |
24 |
> > think that in itself will garner more respect than the current situation |
25 |
> > at least .. |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> |
28 |
> I hate to drag out this tangent further, but there is another matter |
29 |
> that I think that the community should probably vote on: whether |
30 |
> Comrel will accept testimony/evidence/complaints that will be withheld |
31 |
> from the target of the complaint. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Currently the policy is that this kind of evidence will be accepted, |
34 |
> which generates frustration because people feel like they cannot |
35 |
> confront their accuser. The obvious defense of this policy is that |
36 |
> without it some would not come forward with legitimate complaints out |
37 |
> of fear of retaliation (by the person they're accusing, or others who |
38 |
> care about them), or just concern for having their names come up in |
39 |
> Google associated with the incident, since they might trust Gentoo to |
40 |
> keep it private but not the person they're having problems with. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> I'm sure there are plenty of examples of organizations that do it |
43 |
> either way, and since we aren't an employer/etc I don't think we |
44 |
> really have any legal constraints here. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> Either way the policy should be clear to anybody bringing forward a |
47 |
> complaint so that they can trust us to keep things confidential, or |
48 |
> not, in accordance with the policy. |
49 |
> |
50 |
|
51 |
I'm totally supportive of this conversation, but I think its tough to be OP |
52 |
and have your threads de-railed like this; I'd really prefer if we forked |
53 |
this thread to have it. |
54 |
|
55 |
Whether or not we should do any of these things is really orthogonal to |
56 |
this GLEP which just seeks to clarify the existing state. |
57 |
|
58 |
-A |
59 |
|
60 |
|
61 |
> |
62 |
> -- |
63 |
> Rich |
64 |
> |
65 |
> |