| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:17 AM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 13/10/16 12:12, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> So, how many readers would feel 'better' about the situation if the |
| 5 |
>> process was actually more Balanced .. that there was some form of |
| 6 |
>> 'defence' as Chi puts it. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> How about appeals called the accused to answer to Council as well as |
| 9 |
> ComRel .. would that ever work!? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
In every appeal I've seen, Comrel did talk to the accused about what |
| 13 |
happened to collect their side of the story, and the Council afforded |
| 14 |
them the same opportunity to provide additional detail. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
There wasn't anything like a cross-examination or confrontation of witnesses. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think that a common pattern I'm seeing though is a misunderstanding |
| 19 |
of the purpose of the Comrel process. The goal isn't to argue whether |
| 20 |
a particular rule was or wasn't violated (sure, that might be a part |
| 21 |
of it, but it isn't the ultimate purpose). The goal is to determine |
| 22 |
whether somebody is likely to follow the CoC in the future. At least, |
| 23 |
that is how I see it. That is really the same situation as with |
| 24 |
interviews with incoming developers. They don't have a history |
| 25 |
(usually), but we're still interested in assessing whether they will |
| 26 |
be responsible, positive contributors. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
More serious issues are probably going to be harder to just overlook, |
| 29 |
but in general my sense is that Comrel is not in a rush to run model |
| 30 |
citizens out of town on the basis of a single complaint. Again, I |
| 31 |
haven't seen the details of many cases but from what I have seen and |
| 32 |
heard my sense is that in the cases that tend to lead to people being |
| 33 |
ushered out there end up being multiple people complaining. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Rich |
Archives