| 1 |
On 01/15/2017 11:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> It should be noted that an unauthorized disclosure of sensitive |
| 3 |
> information by any party involved would be a base for a strong |
| 4 |
> disciplinary action. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Overall fair procedures and points, but this particular part punishes |
| 7 |
whistleblowing, from inside *or* outside Gentoo. If a given |
| 8 |
target/subject decides to share all related communications to make their |
| 9 |
points publicly, the above suggestion recommends the subject is silenced |
| 10 |
and/or ejected for revealing something directly involving them. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If the intent is to make whistleblowing risky or otherwise (socially) |
| 13 |
dangerous, then it'll get the job done, but at a cost to community |
| 14 |
morale over the long term. I don't support a procedure that punishes |
| 15 |
people for pointing out when it (the procedure) is not working correctly. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I think a more fair restriction would be to place it on Comrel and |
| 18 |
Council, as they are being trusted to not share private information. |
| 19 |
What the two (or more?) sides do in a dispute isn't something we can |
| 20 |
reasonably control, except on our own infrastructure. I find it |
| 21 |
unnecessary and meaningless to place sanctions on users or other |
| 22 |
participants of a conflict if they choose to make their communications |
| 23 |
public. It's /their/ dirty laundry, after all. |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 26 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 27 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives