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

[Raymond Jennings]

I think you missed the part where I suggested that witnesses could 
always give implied consent and waive the right to sue.

The world is so god-damned litigious that "waivers" of this sort are 
more common than they should be.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 2:45 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> 
wrote:
> 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
>