Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 01:10:42
Message-Id: CAAr7Pr9ENmyHwXTYQt2jvm23gTvZhVm6NYny9VBzJBq9h80VWA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status by Rich Freeman
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 >