Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Email from comrel -> Your recent contributions to the gentoo mailing lists
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 12:42:13
Message-Id: CAGfcS_n4hfYoFEEtJLS+ib0JJWBLYTXoePghjX9Yq44FYm55Dg@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Email from comrel -> Your recent contributions to the gentoo mailing lists by Daniel Campbell
1 On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > My thoughts on management remain, and I think better
4 > information sharing (facts, evidence) can prevent huge threads like this
5 > from happening.
6
7 I've been thinking about this and think we might be able to get away
8 with sharing information with the consent of the person involved.
9 That is, when somebody is the subject of a comrel action they would be
10 given the choice of having Gentoo release the information that was
11 shared with them. However, I do not support releasing information
12 when the person who was subject to the complaint does not consent to
13 this.
14
15 In general though I do not support publicly acknowledging Comrel
16 actions without the consent of the person who was impacted.
17
18 This was inspired in part by this example:
19 https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/01/msg00051.html
20
21 From what I've been able tell from other distros Gentoo is actually
22 somewhat more open than most of the others in these regards already.
23 Certainly I'm interested in counterexamples but none of the big
24 distros seem to entertain much public debate over individual cases.
25
26 Banning people out should certainly be rare, but when it is warranted
27 I think it is better than the alternative. The usual example of this
28 is Donnie's Assholes are Destroying Your Project talk, which I
29 generally agree with. Clearly not everybody does, and that's ok, just
30 don't vote for me. :)
31
32 --
33 Rich