| 1 |
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09/30/2016 05:59 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> [snip] |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> 1. When information is turned over to comrel who does it get shared |
| 6 |
>> with, and under what circumstances? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> That information should be kept mainly to the comrel member(s) who |
| 9 |
> were |
| 10 |
> reported to. Should the issue become more serious, share it with the |
| 11 |
> rest of comrel according to case needs (one member having a friendship |
| 12 |
> with a given developer, or a professional background in community |
| 13 |
> management, etc). |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>> 2. Do any members of the community have an obligation to report? |
| 16 |
>> Can |
| 17 |
>> members of comrel/trustees/officers/council/etc be told information |
| 18 |
>> in |
| 19 |
>> private without it being shared back with comrel for the official |
| 20 |
>> record? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> An obligation to report will result in more reporting, some of which |
| 23 |
> will end up being within CoC limits or merely a misunderstanding. |
| 24 |
> Encouragement might not be a bad idea, but forcing them to is just an |
| 25 |
> easy way to make ComRel busy; I'm sure they're just as understaffed as |
| 26 |
> the rest of Gentoo, however. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
>> 3. Specifically, what information gets shared with people named in a |
| 29 |
>> dispute of some kind? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> It depends on the type of dispute. If it's happenstance in a public |
| 32 |
> medium such as the forums, bugzilla, or the ML, then the antagonists |
| 33 |
> and |
| 34 |
> their actions are known and can be shared freely. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> In short I think the privacy level of a dispute should never become |
| 37 |
> lower than the occurrence of the "crime". So if it was in PMs on IRC, |
| 38 |
> it |
| 39 |
> now concerns the ComRel member who was contacted, Party A, and Party |
| 40 |
> B. |
| 41 |
> It should only expand when one ComRel member isn't enough. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> Impactful changes to Gentoo staffing are deserving of mention, but in |
| 44 |
> general terms, like "Foobar project no longer has a lead, election |
| 45 |
> scheduled for..." |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
>> 4. Under what circumstances will information be shared with a |
| 48 |
>> government authority/etc? |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> It's not written anywhere, but I think we owe it to our developers to |
| 51 |
> keep private information private. Without a sufficient reasoning |
| 52 |
> and/or |
| 53 |
> legal force, imo Gentoo should not comply without overwhelming |
| 54 |
> evidence |
| 55 |
> or legitimate legal threat to its incorporation status. We should |
| 56 |
> treat |
| 57 |
> private and internal information like it's valuable and important, |
| 58 |
> because it is. If developers can't share information with the |
| 59 |
> Foundation |
| 60 |
> and/or other developers and expect it to remain at least somewhat |
| 61 |
> safe, |
| 62 |
> then it may lower morale within the Project. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Would we assume that the foundation would be hiring counsel or |
| 65 |
otherwise opposing such legal threats in court? If the foundation gets |
| 66 |
a subpoena or served with a search warrant, how much effort should the |
| 67 |
foundation put into fighting it? |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
>> 5. Do subjects of comrel action generally have a "right to face |
| 70 |
>> their |
| 71 |
>> accuser?" |
| 72 |
> |
| 73 |
> If the action is impacting their developer status or public/internal |
| 74 |
> image, I believe the accuser should be willing to attach their name to |
| 75 |
> their accusations. |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
+1 to this. |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
Furthermore I believe in principle that if you aren't willing to put |
| 80 |
your ass on the line to back your accusation, then your testimony is |
| 81 |
worthless. People are put under oath in court for a reason, and there |
| 82 |
are penalties for perjury. |
| 83 |
|
| 84 |
>> 6. What should be communicated about comrel actions, both |
| 85 |
>> proactively |
| 86 |
>> and when people inquire about them? |
| 87 |
> |
| 88 |
> Proactive announcements only necessary when they impact the |
| 89 |
> functioning |
| 90 |
> of Gentoo and have reason to be made public. Inquiries are a little |
| 91 |
> trickier, as we should strive for transparency internally, but keep |
| 92 |
> sensitive things from the general public. |
| 93 |
> |
| 94 |
>> I think there are a number of pros and cons to any approach we take, |
| 95 |
>> and it is possible for reasonable people to hold a different opinion |
| 96 |
>> on this topic. |
| 97 |
>> |
| 98 |
>> [snip] |
| 99 |
>> |
| 100 |
>> So, whether you think this is great or the worst drivel you've ever |
| 101 |
>> read, please do speak up... |
| 102 |
>> |
| 103 |
>> -- |
| 104 |
>> Rich |
| 105 |
>> |
| 106 |
>> |
| 107 |
> I was wondering who would get around to writing something like this up |
| 108 |
> ever since that conversation about it a while back. :) |
| 109 |
> |
| 110 |
> -- |
| 111 |
> Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 112 |
> OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 113 |
> fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
| 114 |
|
| 115 |
I'd also like to note for the record that the last known version of the |
| 116 |
developer quiz features a question about devrel (now comrel, +todo |
| 117 |
update it), so whoever wrote the quiz obviously feels that a good |
| 118 |
grounding in comrel procedures. |
| 119 |
|
| 120 |
I would very much like this noted for the record, and in addition to |
| 121 |
keeping the quiz updated with whatever happens in this discussion, I'd |
| 122 |
also like the current devmanual policy (cited in the quiz as a |
| 123 |
reference) involved as a subject in this discussion...does that make |
| 124 |
sense? |
| 125 |
|
| 126 |
We kinda do have documentation already, that is at the least being |
| 127 |
cited as a reference in the developer quiz...which I'm presently |
| 128 |
polishing my answers to in the wake of my pending recruitment. |
Archives