Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status

[Raymond Jennings]

What about the whole "hold harmless" things that often pop up?

I think that, as a volunteer organization it's not unreasonable for
the foundation to have waivers in place.

Honestly, I think transparency is good overall, it helps the offender
understand their misdeeds.

If there are any legal risks then maybe new developers should be
agreeing to not sue the foundation.

My two cents.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:07 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote:
>> On 13/04/18 22:57, Rich Freeman wrote [excerpted]:
>>> I find it ironic that you're suggesting that the folks who disagree
>>> with you leave, considering that this whole debate was started by a
>>> bunch of people who basically felt that nobody should really be kicked
>>> out for anything.
>>>
>> The problem stems from the fact that there is (perceived to be) a
>> problem with the wrong kinds of people *being* ejected or disciplined,
>> whereas some people who *should* be ejected or disciplined, are not. And
>> obviously so. There is no even-handed or transparent application of
>> whatever "rules" are being applied, and this is seen to be unjust and
>> unacceptable ...
>>
>
> Obviously I don't want to rehash this whole debate, but applying the
> rules in a transparent way seems to be impossible without creating
> legal risks.  I've yet to hear anything to the contrary from the
> Trustees/etc.  So, it comes down to either trusting people to do this
> well, or not doing it at all.  I'm certainly supportive of calls to
> try to improve transparency where this is possible, such as with
> anonymized stats published by comrel.
>
> FWIW I've actually heard complaints at all levels within Gentoo about
> double standards (coming from the top on down).  It is probably fair
> to say that bad deeds can be offset by good deeds to a significant
> degree around here, even if those deeds are of a different nature.
> So, somebody with a strong negative technical/non-technical/social
> contribution could be tolerated if they have a correspondingly strong
> positive social/non-technical/technical contribution.  I've seen lots
> of debate on both sides as to whether that is good or bad, but there
> are certainly consequences for being too liberal with booting people
> out, or keeping them around.
>
> I haven't heard many appeals during my time on the Council, but from
> the ones I have seen there were usually very good reasons for those
> who were asked to leave, and those same people were generally not very
> honest with the community about the reasons they were given for being
> booted.  One form of transparency I have suggested is that when
> disciplinary actions are given the person being disciplined should be
> given an explanation for why the action is being taken, and that at
> their option that explanation would be made public verbatim.  I've
> seen Debian do this and I thought it was a good way to balance
> privacy/transparency/risk.  The person being disciplined can at their
> option keep the whole matter quiet, or they can have it publicized in
> an official way.  However, if they decide to publish their own account
> of events while denying Gentoo permission to publish its side, then
> those listening will probably be skeptical that they're getting the
> full story.  Since Gentoo would not make any public statements without
> permission from the person impacted there would be little risk of
> legal repercussions.
>
> --
> Rich
>