1 |
On 12/02/2016 09:10 PM, Craig Inches wrote: |
2 |
> I think privacy from the wider community would be a good thing in the |
3 |
> first instance for two reasons. |
4 |
> a) it allows people to come forward in confidence that they wont be |
5 |
> targeted by the accused for what ever reason. |
6 |
> b) it allows the accused to deal with the issue quietly, and resolve |
7 |
> the issue without it becoming a bigger issue than it needs to (an |
8 |
> misunderstand blows out to much more, or false allegations tarnish |
9 |
> their reputation. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I agree with Rich, I haven't seen an organisation make all complaints |
12 |
> handling a completely transparent and open processes it has too much |
13 |
> risk of abuse. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> What I think is important though is that both parties involved have |
16 |
> information about the events/complaints/examples. If you cant give |
17 |
> this, then how are they to discuss the issue, or defend themselves |
18 |
> against COMREL/Complainant. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I realize I am not a dev, but for awhile I was actively pursuing this |
21 |
> and the situation with Idella4 (who was my mentor) has made me have |
22 |
> second thoughts, from the information I have been able glean about |
23 |
> what occurred, and also the way his retirement was handled cause |
24 |
> confusion and disillusionment with the whole process for me at least |
25 |
> and I think a few non-devs from Proxy-Maint IRC channel feel the same. |
26 |
Please do not let this dissuade you from becoming a Gentoo developer. |
27 |
Despite the current situation and the giant books being written about |
28 |
comrel, council, and others, this is not the norm. Many developers |
29 |
contribute everyday with no interference or thoughts of either. Hell, I |
30 |
did not even know they existed aside from the quizzes. No one focuses |
31 |
on the good things they have done... that is for sure. |
32 |
|
33 |
> |
34 |
> Just me 2cents |
35 |
> |
36 |
> Craig |
37 |
> |
38 |
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
39 |
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote: |
40 |
>>> Whose privacy, exactly, is at stake if comrel were to breach confidentiality |
41 |
>>> on this issue? I'd rather ask for a full list. |
42 |
>>> |
43 |
>> I wouldn't advocate opening this up even if nobody's privacy were at |
44 |
>> stake, as I believe the issue goes beyond privacy. (It tends to pit |
45 |
>> people against each other, if accusations are false (or true) they can |
46 |
>> become damaging to reputations, and so on. Almost no organization I'm |
47 |
>> aware of publishes this kind of stuff, and counterexamples are |
48 |
>> welcome.) |
49 |
>> |
50 |
>> However, opening up comrel evidence affects the privacy of the person |
51 |
>> who is the subject of a comrel action, and those who told that the |
52 |
>> information would be kept private when they submitted their |
53 |
>> complaints/etc. |
54 |
>> |
55 |
>> And this is a big part of why the Council decided not to open up this |
56 |
>> evidence. People had already been told that information would be kept |
57 |
>> private. And that is in my email WAY back at the beginning when I |
58 |
>> opened this up for discussion I phrased the question in terms of what |
59 |
>> kinds of expectations of privacy should we allow. IMO we can't tell |
60 |
>> people that information will be kept private, and then later change |
61 |
>> our minds. Now, we could have a policy that all submitted information |
62 |
>> is public, and when somebody says, "could I tell you something in |
63 |
>> private" Comrel could respond with, "sorry, but any information that |
64 |
>> you give me that concerns another member of the community will be |
65 |
>> published and I cannot promise that information will be kept private." |
66 |
>> |
67 |
>> I still tend to favor allowing information to be submitted in private |
68 |
>> for reasons I've already stated back in those 100+ post threads. |
69 |
>> However, it is a debate I don't mind having. |
70 |
>> |
71 |
>> What I don't think we can do is publish information without the |
72 |
>> permission of those who provided it, without obtaining that |
73 |
>> permission, which I suspect is unlikely to be forthcoming anyway. |
74 |
>> |
75 |
>> -- |
76 |
>> Rich |
77 |
>> |