| 1 |
On 10/11/2016 02:06 PM, Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 2 |
> Team, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> In general, I agree with this proposal. Its something we can build on |
| 5 |
> and flesh out. I've added a few pointers towards where I would like to |
| 6 |
> see it headed. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> On 2016.10.08 19:14, Matthew Thode wrote: |
| 9 |
>> This is just a very simple proposal for what to / what should be set |
| 10 |
>> as |
| 11 |
>> policy. Hopefully this starts things moving again. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> 1. When information is turned over to comrel who does it get shared |
| 14 |
>> with, and under what circumstances? |
| 15 |
>> 1. held within comrel until appeal (technically accessible by infra) |
| 16 |
>> 2. available to trustees |
| 17 |
> Needs to be available for audit by an elected group outside of comrel for |
| 18 |
> several reasons. |
| 19 |
> a) so that said elected group can provide an assurance to the community |
| 20 |
> that comrel is operating as intended. |
| 21 |
> b) to renew comrels mandate. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Elected group so that if that group is perceived to be making incorrect |
| 24 |
> decisions, they can be replaced using existing processes. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
good amendment +1 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
>> 2. Do any members of the community have an obligation to report? Can |
| 30 |
>> members of comrel/trustees/officers/council/etc be told information in |
| 31 |
>> private without it being shared back with comrel for the official |
| 32 |
>> record? |
| 33 |
> Thats two questions |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
>> 1. no, but are heavily encouraged to |
| 36 |
> Agreed on reporting obligations. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
>> 3. Specifically, what information gets shared with people named in a |
| 39 |
>> dispute of some kind? |
| 40 |
>> 1. anonymized transcripts if feasible, else all info. |
| 41 |
>> 4. Under what circumstances will information be shared with a |
| 42 |
>> government authority/etc? |
| 43 |
>> 1. when required |
| 44 |
>> 5. Do subjects of comrel action generally have a "right to face their |
| 45 |
>> accuser?" |
| 46 |
>> 1. no |
| 47 |
> That depends what "face their accuser" means. If it means anonymising |
| 48 |
> the accuser, the answer needs to be yes. It makes mediation difficult |
| 49 |
> or impossible unless the parties are known to one anther. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> If the case is so clear cut, that its clear that (further) mediation is |
| 52 |
> pointless, then I agree with the "No" but that should be rare. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Agreed, I was saying that there is not a right to face your accuser set |
| 56 |
in stone. I'd expect that in practice people would know (at least in an |
| 57 |
anon way) who their accuser is. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
>> 6. What should be communicated about comrel actions, both proactively |
| 60 |
>> and when people inquire about them? |
| 61 |
>> 1. as needed, project lead notified |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> As needed is a bit vague. The outcome should be communicated to |
| 64 |
> anyone directly touched by the decision. The why and the guts of the |
| 65 |
> incident remain confidential as outlined above. |
| 66 |
> |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
It's vague on purpose because this is a big question. Saying that we |
| 69 |
will notify people when we can is good though. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
>> 2. in statistics |
| 72 |
> In monthly statistics, which will have the side benefit of showing |
| 73 |
> that comrel is still active. |
| 74 |
> |
| 75 |
>> |
| 76 |
>> -- |
| 77 |
>> Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
| 78 |
>> |
| 79 |
>> |
| 80 |
> |
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
Is the next step to propose this to council (and maybe foundation, not |
| 83 |
sure there). |
| 84 |
|
| 85 |
-- |
| 86 |
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives