| 1 |
On 2016.11.09 14:51, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
[snip] |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Right now CoC enforcement falls on the Council, so people elect |
| 6 |
> representatives to the Council who they trust to handle these matters. |
| 7 |
> You could change the CoC enforcement so that it falls on the Trustees, |
| 8 |
> but then you're probably going to see the same sorts of people elected |
| 9 |
> as Trustees instead. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
[snip] |
| 12 |
> -- |
| 13 |
> Rich |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Rich, |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That's an over simplification of the *perception* today. |
| 19 |
Responsibility for CoC enforcement falls on the Council but Council have |
| 20 |
delegated the day to day operations to comrel. That'ts the way lots of |
| 21 |
things are caused to happen. So far, so good. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
You have offered elsewhere on this ML that council do not get involved |
| 24 |
unless there is an appeal. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
It follows that council have delegated something that they appear to |
| 27 |
never monitor. That may not be the way it was intended but that's the way |
| 28 |
it appears to work. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Given that that the component parts of comrel predate council, it easy to |
| 31 |
see how the council/comrel relationship we have today evolved. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Since council do not appear to monitor comrel, how does council know |
| 34 |
that they are doing a good job, or indeed that comrel is still active? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Regards, |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Roy Bamford |
| 42 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 43 |
elections |
| 44 |
gentoo-ops |
| 45 |
forum-mods |
| 46 |
trustees |
Archives