1 |
That is another thing. |
2 |
|
3 |
If things are kept secret, how will the "accused" know on what basis to |
4 |
make their appeals? |
5 |
|
6 |
If someone either truly wishes to "see the light and change their ways", |
7 |
how will they know what to work on? Or if a mistake has indeed been made, |
8 |
how is the errant exile supposed to prove it? |
9 |
|
10 |
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Craig Inches <craig@×××××.net> wrote: |
11 |
|
12 |
> I think privacy from the wider community would be a good thing in the |
13 |
> first instance for two reasons. |
14 |
> a) it allows people to come forward in confidence that they wont be |
15 |
> targeted by the accused for what ever reason. |
16 |
> b) it allows the accused to deal with the issue quietly, and resolve |
17 |
> the issue without it becoming a bigger issue than it needs to (an |
18 |
> misunderstand blows out to much more, or false allegations tarnish |
19 |
> their reputation. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> I agree with Rich, I haven't seen an organisation make all complaints |
22 |
> handling a completely transparent and open processes it has too much |
23 |
> risk of abuse. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> What I think is important though is that both parties involved have |
26 |
> information about the events/complaints/examples. If you cant give |
27 |
> this, then how are they to discuss the issue, or defend themselves |
28 |
> against COMREL/Complainant. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> I realize I am not a dev, but for awhile I was actively pursuing this |
31 |
> and the situation with Idella4 (who was my mentor) has made me have |
32 |
> second thoughts, from the information I have been able glean about |
33 |
> what occurred, and also the way his retirement was handled cause |
34 |
> confusion and disillusionment with the whole process for me at least |
35 |
> and I think a few non-devs from Proxy-Maint IRC channel feel the same. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> Just me 2cents |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Craig |
40 |
> |
41 |
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
42 |
> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> |
43 |
> wrote: |
44 |
> >> |
45 |
> >> Whose privacy, exactly, is at stake if comrel were to breach |
46 |
> confidentiality |
47 |
> >> on this issue? I'd rather ask for a full list. |
48 |
> >> |
49 |
> > |
50 |
> > I wouldn't advocate opening this up even if nobody's privacy were at |
51 |
> > stake, as I believe the issue goes beyond privacy. (It tends to pit |
52 |
> > people against each other, if accusations are false (or true) they can |
53 |
> > become damaging to reputations, and so on. Almost no organization I'm |
54 |
> > aware of publishes this kind of stuff, and counterexamples are |
55 |
> > welcome.) |
56 |
> > |
57 |
> > However, opening up comrel evidence affects the privacy of the person |
58 |
> > who is the subject of a comrel action, and those who told that the |
59 |
> > information would be kept private when they submitted their |
60 |
> > complaints/etc. |
61 |
> > |
62 |
> > And this is a big part of why the Council decided not to open up this |
63 |
> > evidence. People had already been told that information would be kept |
64 |
> > private. And that is in my email WAY back at the beginning when I |
65 |
> > opened this up for discussion I phrased the question in terms of what |
66 |
> > kinds of expectations of privacy should we allow. IMO we can't tell |
67 |
> > people that information will be kept private, and then later change |
68 |
> > our minds. Now, we could have a policy that all submitted information |
69 |
> > is public, and when somebody says, "could I tell you something in |
70 |
> > private" Comrel could respond with, "sorry, but any information that |
71 |
> > you give me that concerns another member of the community will be |
72 |
> > published and I cannot promise that information will be kept private." |
73 |
> > |
74 |
> > I still tend to favor allowing information to be submitted in private |
75 |
> > for reasons I've already stated back in those 100+ post threads. |
76 |
> > However, it is a debate I don't mind having. |
77 |
> > |
78 |
> > What I don't think we can do is publish information without the |
79 |
> > permission of those who provided it, without obtaining that |
80 |
> > permission, which I suspect is unlikely to be forthcoming anyway. |
81 |
> > |
82 |
> > -- |
83 |
> > Rich |
84 |
> > |
85 |
> |
86 |
> |