| 1 |
On 03/04/18 02:01, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> - overruling council (and comrel?) decisions with a 2:1 majority |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
> While I could see this making sense for most Council/QA decisions, I'm |
| 6 |
> skeptical of how this could work for Comrel, given that nobody would |
| 7 |
> have anything to go off of, unless we made these matters public. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I could see it possibly working if we made it clear that there is no |
| 10 |
> expectation of privacy for anybody bringing a complaint, and that the |
| 11 |
> entire matter would be made public if the accused wished to appeal it |
| 12 |
> to a general resolution. Then it would be up to the person who was |
| 13 |
> subject to discipline to allow a general vote. If they did not allow |
| 14 |
> this, then the Council (or Comrel, if no appeal) would have the final |
| 15 |
> say and it could not be appealed. If they did allow this, then the |
| 16 |
> entire record would be made public and available for a general vote. |
| 17 |
> The accused would have full access to the record before deciding |
| 18 |
> whether to make it public, so there would be no surprises. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I'm not a super-big fan of this, but I see it as the only reasonable |
| 21 |
> way to let Comrel decisions turn into a general resolution. Otherwise |
| 22 |
> people basically have to vote blind. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> On the flip side, it would let the accused leave quietly with no |
| 25 |
> public defamation/etc if they so wished, but in doing so they wouldn't |
| 26 |
> really have much room to complain about the process being closed, |
| 27 |
> since they were the one who decided to keep it that way. On the other |
| 28 |
> hand, if they insisted on a public proceeding then everybody can |
| 29 |
> decide for themselves what is appropriate. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> The main downside is that we'd need to make it clear to anybody |
| 32 |
> issuing a complaint that they would not get a say in whether what they |
| 33 |
> submit was shared with the accused or the public. Otherwise we would |
| 34 |
> be taking that decision out of the accused's hands, and it basically |
| 35 |
> defeats the point in having this sort of appeal available. This might |
| 36 |
> potentially have a chilling effect on anybody who might want to bring |
| 37 |
> a complaint, since it could become public if the accused so desired. |
| 38 |
> Either way I think things like this are best made clear up-front so |
| 39 |
> there are no surprises. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
Pardon my unwanted opinion, but that sounds like a seriously verbose |
| 42 |
'yes' .. or at least firm 'maybe' ... |
Archives