Re: [gentoo-project] Hiding problems, breach of Gentoo Social Contract

[Craig Inches]

I think privacy from the wider community would be a good thing in the
first instance for two reasons.
a) it allows people to come forward in confidence that they wont be
targeted by the accused for what ever reason.
b) it allows the accused to deal with the issue quietly, and resolve
the issue without it becoming a bigger issue than it needs to (an
misunderstand blows out to much more, or false allegations tarnish
their reputation.

I agree with Rich, I haven't seen an organisation make all complaints
handling a completely transparent and open processes it has too much
risk of abuse.

What I think is important though is that both parties involved have
information about the events/complaints/examples. If you cant give
this, then how are they to discuss the issue, or defend themselves
against COMREL/Complainant.

I realize I am not a dev, but for awhile I was actively pursuing this
and the situation with Idella4 (who was my mentor) has made me have
second thoughts,  from the information I have been able glean about
what occurred, and also the way his retirement was handled cause
confusion and disillusionment with the whole process for me at least
and I think a few non-devs from Proxy-Maint IRC channel feel the same.

Just me 2cents

Craig

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote:
>>
>> Whose privacy, exactly, is at stake if comrel were to breach confidentiality
>> on this issue?  I'd rather ask for a full list.
>>
>
> I wouldn't advocate opening this up even if nobody's privacy were at
> stake, as I believe the issue goes beyond privacy.  (It tends to pit
> people against each other, if accusations are false (or true) they can
> become damaging to reputations, and so on.  Almost no organization I'm
> aware of publishes this kind of stuff, and counterexamples are
> welcome.)
>
> However, opening up comrel evidence affects the privacy of the person
> who is the subject of a comrel action, and those who told that the
> information would be kept private when they submitted their
> complaints/etc.
>
> And this is a big part of why the Council decided not to open up this
> evidence.  People had already been told that information would be kept
> private.  And that is in my email WAY back at the beginning when I
> opened this up for discussion I phrased the question in terms of what
> kinds of expectations of privacy should we allow.  IMO we can't tell
> people that information will be kept private, and then later change
> our minds.  Now, we could have a policy that all submitted information
> is public, and when somebody says, "could I tell you something in
> private" Comrel could respond with, "sorry, but any information that
> you give me that concerns another member of the community will be
> published and I cannot promise that information will be kept private."
>
> I still tend to favor allowing information to be submitted in private
> for reasons I've already stated back in those 100+ post threads.
> However, it is a debate I don't mind having.
>
> What I don't think we can do is publish information without the
> permission of those who provided it, without obtaining that
> permission, which I suspect is unlikely to be forthcoming anyway.
>
> --
> Rich
>