Re: Comrel Accountability (Was "Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...")

[NP-Hardass]

On 10/12/2016 05:14 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o
> <mailto:rich0@g.o>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Raymond Jennings
>     <shentino@×××××.com <mailto:shentino@×××××.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     > As I mentioned before though, I think that could be done by having the
>     > comrel member accepting their "testimony" be held responsible for:
>     >
>     > 1) Forwarding back any challenges to credibility, basically serving as a
>     > go-between.  This preserves the anonymity, but also allows the "accused" to
>     > rebut any questionable evidence or explain anything that may have been taken
>     > out of context, whether by mistake or otherwise.
>
>     Certainly Comrel ought to investigate the validity of any testimony,
>     especially things like PM logs or such which are easily tampered with.
>     That might include asking the accused for their own logs, or simply
>     discounting any evidence like this that isn't backed by multiple
>     people (maybe more than one witnessed an event, or maybe the same sort
>     of event happened multiple times).
>
>
> And I think the witness should be given the chance to explain or update
> as needed.  Having comrel act as the middleman preserves their anonymity.
>
>
>     > 2) If the testimony proves false and unreliable, the witness's identity can
>     > be exposed.  And in this case, deservedly so.
>
>     This is still very problematically legally, because this amounts to
>     potential defamation against the witness if you can't prove that
>     you've gotten it right to the standards of a court.
>
>
> Not if policy is updated so that a) people submitting testimony to
> comrel going forward give implied consent and b) standard boilerplate
> legalese where they waive the right to sue.
>
> And also:
> 1) In civil lawsuits for defamation, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff
Depends on what jurisdiction.  US, sure.  UK, burden is on the defendant
(Defamation Act 2013)  The foundation may be US based, but lawsuits can
ostensibly come from anywhere.
Better to avoid risking a lawsuit than assume that we'd have the
upperhand when we'd get hit with one.
> 2) Truth is an absolute defense to defamation/libel/slander
Once again, depends on jurisdiction.  Additionally, "truth" is
subjective and a function of what evidence you bring to the table (and
what is deemed admissible)
> 3) Opinions are not actionable.  My opinion is that Donald Trump has
> horrible hair.  Whether his hair is horrible or not, it is the truth
> that I have such an opinion, and he can't sue me, because my statement
> is about my opinion, not his hair.
Look up the case of David Irving.  He sued the author of a book about
holocaust deniers (because he is one) and the case took up 5 years and
several million dollars to settle.  That kind of risk is unacceptable
for the foundation.
The UK is one of the most notorious nations for horrible
libel/defamation laws. Exposure to additional risk from a major first
world country is not wise, especially when the alternative is so much
simpler.
>
>
>     > 4) IIRC/IMHO, its comrel's job to bring malicious witnesses to justice, and
>     > if they don't its a failure of responsibility on comrel's part and they
>     > should take the heat for it.  If they're doing their jobs properly though,
>     > passing the blame back where it belongs should be a cakewalk.
>
>     I do agree that people who falsely accuse others should be sanctioned,
>     but this is probably best handled in private through the same Comrel
>     processes.
>
>     And if after scrutiny all you have is he-says-she-says then we should
>     probably just tell everybody what they should be doing, get them to
>     acknowledge that they intend to do so going forward (regardless of
>     whether it did or didn't happen in the past), and move on unless new
>     evidence surfaces.  Sometimes you can't always tell what happened.
>     I'm certainly not suggesting that a mere accusation should lead to
>     harsh action.
>
>     --
>     Rich
>
>


-- 
NP-Hardass