| 1 |
Team, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
In general, I agree with this proposal. Its something we can build on |
| 4 |
and flesh out. I've added a few pointers towards where I would like to |
| 5 |
see it headed. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On 2016.10.08 19:14, Matthew Thode wrote: |
| 8 |
> This is just a very simple proposal for what to / what should be set |
| 9 |
> as |
| 10 |
> policy. Hopefully this starts things moving again. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> 1. When information is turned over to comrel who does it get shared |
| 13 |
> with, and under what circumstances? |
| 14 |
> 1. held within comrel until appeal (technically accessible by infra) |
| 15 |
> 2. available to trustees |
| 16 |
Needs to be available for audit by an elected group outside of comrel for |
| 17 |
several reasons. |
| 18 |
a) so that said elected group can provide an assurance to the community |
| 19 |
that comrel is operating as intended. |
| 20 |
b) to renew comrels mandate. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Elected group so that if that group is perceived to be making incorrect |
| 23 |
decisions, they can be replaced using existing processes. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> 2. Do any members of the community have an obligation to report? Can |
| 26 |
> members of comrel/trustees/officers/council/etc be told information in |
| 27 |
> private without it being shared back with comrel for the official |
| 28 |
> record? |
| 29 |
Thats two questions |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> 1. no, but are heavily encouraged to |
| 32 |
Agreed on reporting obligations. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> 3. Specifically, what information gets shared with people named in a |
| 35 |
> dispute of some kind? |
| 36 |
> 1. anonymized transcripts if feasible, else all info. |
| 37 |
> 4. Under what circumstances will information be shared with a |
| 38 |
> government authority/etc? |
| 39 |
> 1. when required |
| 40 |
> 5. Do subjects of comrel action generally have a "right to face their |
| 41 |
> accuser?" |
| 42 |
> 1. no |
| 43 |
That depends what "face their accuser" means. If it means anonymising |
| 44 |
the accuser, the answer needs to be yes. It makes mediation difficult |
| 45 |
or impossible unless the parties are known to one anther. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
If the case is so clear cut, that its clear that (further) mediation is |
| 48 |
pointless, then I agree with the "No" but that should be rare. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> 6. What should be communicated about comrel actions, both proactively |
| 51 |
> and when people inquire about them? |
| 52 |
> 1. as needed, project lead notified |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
As needed is a bit vague. The outcome should be communicated to |
| 55 |
anyone directly touched by the decision. The why and the guts of the |
| 56 |
incident remain confidential as outlined above. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
> 2. in statistics |
| 59 |
In monthly statistics, which will have the side benefit of showing |
| 60 |
that comrel is still active. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> -- |
| 64 |
> Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
> |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
-- |
| 69 |
Regards, |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
Roy Bamford |
| 72 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 73 |
elections |
| 74 |
gentoo-ops |
| 75 |
forum-mods |
Archives