| 1 |
On 06/11/16 21:25, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 3:47 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I'm not entirely sure your experience bears out. I've seen exclusions in |
| 4 |
>> the time I've been involved with Gentoo, and on very debatable grounds. |
| 5 |
> Such as? I don't claim to be privy to ever comrel action, only those |
| 6 |
> which are appealed, and there haven't been many of those. If somebody |
| 7 |
> is so convinced that they won't prevail on appeal that they don't even |
| 8 |
> bother, then it is hard to be sympathetic to the claim that they've |
| 9 |
> done nothing wrong. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Note that comrel generally doesn't publish the grounds they have for |
| 12 |
> taking action. Others might do so, but Comrel does not comment as to |
| 13 |
> whether the grounds being posted are in fact the whole story. |
| 14 |
> Certainly the targets of comrel actions should be getting the full |
| 15 |
> story, and if not they can certainly ask the Council to step in. |
| 16 |
> However, I've yet to see a case where the grounds for Comrel action |
| 17 |
> wasn't told to the person involved, and generally the Council weighs |
| 18 |
> whether those are sufficient grounds for action. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> It doesn't make for great PR all the time, but it is basically what |
| 21 |
> just about any other responsible organizations does in these sorts of |
| 22 |
> situations. I can't remember the last time I saw somebody fired from |
| 23 |
> my workplace bragging about the real reason why it was done. |
| 24 |
> Inevitably it is blamed on some kind of minor disagreement. And |
| 25 |
> companies generally just ignore this stuff as long as it doesn't go to |
| 26 |
> court, and it rarely does, because the court isn't going to keep it |
| 27 |
> private and you can't sue the court for publishing a bunch of |
| 28 |
> documents accusing you of doing horrible things. You certainly can |
| 29 |
> sue organizations that publish such things outside of a court, which |
| 30 |
> is one of the reasons why nobody else does it, and we shouldn't |
| 31 |
> either. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
Since you've taken the opportunity to bring up the subject of ComRel, I |
| 34 |
still wholeheartedly believe that whilst that project continues to work |
| 35 |
under a veil of secrecy (with no disrespect to any members concerned) it |
| 36 |
loses a sense of integrity. If anyone cannot see this, I continue to |
| 37 |
believe they are naive or worse. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
If there are cases of appeal which are brought to the council, and the |
| 40 |
grounds of the action made available are not the whole story, I would |
| 41 |
certainly expect the council to be made fully aware of this, even if |
| 42 |
this doesn't facilitate any further disclosure. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Finally, in instances of forced retirements I have witnessed, the person |
| 45 |
in question was removed from access to Bugzilla before the full claim |
| 46 |
made against them was documented. And therefore they were unaware of the |
| 47 |
accusations/allegations made against them with which to form an appeal |
| 48 |
to the body of ComRel nor Council. This, according to the wiki pages for |
| 49 |
the project, would tend to suggest that due process was not followed, |
| 50 |
and hence on those grounds at least, an appeal should question whether |
| 51 |
action taken was due and correct, even if it does not lead to an |
| 52 |
eventual reversal. The process should be transparent enough to state |
| 53 |
that a review had taken place, again, even if it does not present its |
| 54 |
findings. But I go back to my point that a project (any project) that |
| 55 |
operates under a veil of secrecy sacrifices integrity as a result of this. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Just my 2c! :] |
Archives