| 1 |
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 06:38:10 -0800 |
| 2 |
Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 01/15/2017 11:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > It should be noted that an unauthorized disclosure of sensitive |
| 6 |
> > information by any party involved would be a base for a strong |
| 7 |
> > disciplinary action. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Overall fair procedures and points, but this particular part punishes |
| 10 |
> whistleblowing, from inside *or* outside Gentoo. If a given |
| 11 |
> target/subject decides to share all related communications to make their |
| 12 |
> points publicly, the above suggestion recommends the subject is silenced |
| 13 |
> and/or ejected for revealing something directly involving them. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> If the intent is to make whistleblowing risky or otherwise (socially) |
| 16 |
> dangerous, then it'll get the job done, but at a cost to community |
| 17 |
> morale over the long term. I don't support a procedure that punishes |
| 18 |
> people for pointing out when it (the procedure) is not working correctly. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I think a more fair restriction would be to place it on Comrel and |
| 21 |
> Council, as they are being trusted to not share private information. |
| 22 |
> What the two (or more?) sides do in a dispute isn't something we can |
| 23 |
> reasonably control, except on our own infrastructure. I find it |
| 24 |
> unnecessary and meaningless to place sanctions on users or other |
| 25 |
> participants of a conflict if they choose to make their communications |
| 26 |
> public. It's /their/ dirty laundry, after all. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
This particular point, aside to ensuring that teams keep the necessary |
| 29 |
secrecy, serves the goals: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
1. to discourage users from taking 'revenge' on others by disclosing |
| 32 |
their secrets, |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
2. to discourage users from bickering and turning Gentoo into a public |
| 35 |
stoning place whenever they are unhappy with a disciplinary decision. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
The first point is more important. Consider the following case. Alice |
| 38 |
tells Bob her secret. Some time later Bob starts bullying Alice. |
| 39 |
Eventually, Alice files a complaint at ComRel and Bob gets banned. Now, |
| 40 |
Bob wants to reveal Alice's secret to take revenge on her. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Do you really think he should be allowed do that, just because he |
| 43 |
disagrees with the decision? Because I certainly don't think we should |
| 44 |
support behavior like that, and as far as I'm concerned a person that |
| 45 |
does that should be isolated from the Gentoo community. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
The second point has already been covered by Rich. If you believe |
| 48 |
the decision was unjust, appeal. If your appeal was overthrown, get on |
| 49 |
with it. We don't really need people turning themselves into martyrs, |
| 50 |
demanding public judgment and ComRel stoning three times a day. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
I know this rule won't prohibit this completely but I believe we're |
| 53 |
really better off without public prosecutions. I should also point out |
| 54 |
that some people jump straight to this without even filing an appeal -- |
| 55 |
and I think that's the best proof we need. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Best regards, |
| 59 |
Michał Górny |
| 60 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives