Re: [gentoo-project] Comrel Improvements: Expectations of Privacy

[Daniel Campbell]

On 09/30/2016 05:59 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> [snip]
>
> 1.  When information is turned over to comrel who does it get shared
> with, and under what circumstances?

That information should be kept mainly to the comrel member(s) who were
reported to. Should the issue become more serious, share it with the
rest of comrel according to case needs (one member having a friendship
with a given developer, or a professional background in community
management, etc).

> 2.  Do any members of the community have an obligation to report?  Can
> members of comrel/trustees/officers/council/etc be told information in
> private without it being shared back with comrel for the official
> record?

An obligation to report will result in more reporting, some of which
will end up being within CoC limits or merely a misunderstanding.
Encouragement might not be a bad idea, but forcing them to is just an
easy way to make ComRel busy; I'm sure they're just as understaffed as
the rest of Gentoo, however.

> 3. Specifically, what information gets shared with people named in a
> dispute of some kind?

It depends on the type of dispute. If it's happenstance in a public
medium such as the forums, bugzilla, or the ML, then the antagonists and
their actions are known and can be shared freely.

In short I think the privacy level of a dispute should never become
lower than the occurrence of the "crime". So if it was in PMs on IRC, it
now concerns the ComRel member who was contacted, Party A, and Party B.
It should only expand when one ComRel member isn't enough.

Impactful changes to Gentoo staffing are deserving of mention, but in
general terms, like "Foobar project no longer has a lead, election
scheduled for..."

> 4. Under what circumstances will information be shared with a
> government authority/etc?

It's not written anywhere, but I think we owe it to our developers to
keep private information private. Without a sufficient reasoning and/or
legal force, imo Gentoo should not comply without overwhelming evidence
or legitimate legal threat to its incorporation status. We should treat
private and internal information like it's valuable and important,
because it is. If developers can't share information with the Foundation
and/or other developers and expect it to remain at least somewhat safe,
then it may lower morale within the Project.

> 5. Do subjects of comrel action generally have a "right to face their
> accuser?"

If the action is impacting their developer status or public/internal
image, I believe the accuser should be willing to attach their name to
their accusations.

> 6. What should be communicated about comrel actions, both proactively
> and when people inquire about them?

Proactive announcements only necessary when they impact the functioning
of Gentoo and have reason to be made public. Inquiries are a little
trickier, as we should strive for transparency internally, but keep
sensitive things from the general public.

>
> I think there are a number of pros and cons to any approach we take,
> and it is possible for reasonable people to hold a different opinion
> on this topic.
>
> [snip]
>
> So, whether you think this is great or the worst drivel you've ever
> read, please do speak up...
>
> --
> Rich
>
>
I was wondering who would get around to writing something like this up
ever since that conversation about it a while back. :)

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6