From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B26EF1382C5 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:25:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D10C2E0999; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:25:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pl0-x22e.google.com (mail-pl0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FDCEE0999 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:25:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id t20-v6so10747053ply.9 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:25:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=7RcvSDbzz+Qj1n7K/kv+9IIf8M8RHKBCdbCNv6/0N64=; b=vJ5sDG7DLuU8cSIjrkksp7t98cd47dLalUZyNi/C5l2lhmVQWMep2VbTfWVhPqqWDp BVWGqhouve+FW/B8mb5tz+PcyeLLghwU+VsoiY/enuMKngQ7ESEH0mxqj5Dqa4Z1Zkd7 d+SbH+OQPik51C+RfBL9zDSqws4z+vQC4Rduuz08/LItO+AJDQbJcn1igIRJJhJDPz6N ndM2heQglkTyjyf4OqfFGieLL1qKnzAi2S/Ir9/7M9n6AfbUmI3lAOlMQtB4rk0d68EO IWSmnTft+QPaxLTt348gPoDpJ8FrmXlyUf3m4QscDgIqFXGmMGm2X1/g7ohFA7C2DyBy svmA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=7RcvSDbzz+Qj1n7K/kv+9IIf8M8RHKBCdbCNv6/0N64=; b=p4GXxzZyum35Nw2zuw9mknsUHztwTh5VrcgjSK7jQmcGFIRb5+ghxKZI5H92Q0o5fu 41ZT0ZC2/0GJAneonjktT/KTs59QcilsAgzn6wB+k/kjHbVD9hw88YABXyU+H3LS7gUg Qg3FW+mZq+r8cvFncTpxThTUgYYL/yaVlBYdvJJCOQaqxfAx595+z6t/joaYPYyRAcv6 9JjKH+s4obFN1P07LbZHLbR6KLS2UAJCObg9mhB5pQzi1/PR8BYaMzOMngnjKo6cTu7p X/ayFAbmoojDOyLaI0JI2QnvV1EJl3dpKYd7C2f018Kg5cEi29uLS6bsStU357eWBEVB xlsg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tAttG7NL/ixydFWj/WGkjB0d4gFwLDt7beWk23fZ3+rnHf6SDoS Ev8VAZsmGhWDItJGTxQ32YGBLtYqtbl5wAsYxd/CLQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+5MXm+XxTbsg1NQW92S4nIeyha6gMzBSHUI6q5JS6Bpq9ZDeAL94O8Lmpu9HWh4giNql6wkvFoeRCob3AQfXk= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:1a4:: with SMTP id b33-v6mr16794475plb.303.1523913953529; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:25:53 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.236.174.22 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:25:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180416191315.ysr2yqq4qm7vtute@gentoo.org> References: <2a075ac6-057a-e526-6c4a-2c0d122600dc@gentoo.org> <821af8d2-0c64-1a48-cd8f-017a7e42aefe@gentoo.org> <20180416184524.iz4wbgrx56g2jq3z@gentoo.org> <20180416191315.ysr2yqq4qm7vtute@gentoo.org> From: Rich Freeman Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:25:52 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: RHImYmygeiDaxFSkWGBP_vXbkCg Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1 To: gentoo-nfp Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: 189c8c68-6982-4bf4-bb1b-04c0a30af3e3 X-Archives-Hash: 08a0bd8df9e021c71ce9a4648d72545b On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: > > I tend to agree that comrel should not police this particular list. I think you were just stating an opinion here and not announcing any kind of official policy, correct? That aside, I'd suggest that you consider the implications if this were policy: 1. Is the CoC still in force on this list? If not, are there ANY standards of behavior in force, and if so where are they defined? 2. If somebody were to have a concern about violations of any standards in force (CoC or otherwise), where should they direct these concerns? 3. Who will deal with any concerns that are raised, and what processes will they follow, and what recourse, if any, is there if there is disagreement with the outcome? 4. What expectations of privacy/secrecy should anybody have if they raise a concern? IMO you're going to quickly find that if the CoC doesn't apply then you're just going to have to invent another CoC to take its place, or deal with pandemonium. Likewise if Comrel isn't the body enforcing the -nfp CoC then you're just going to have to invent another Comrel to take its place. If the concern is that the CoC is broken in some way, wouldn't it make more sense to fix it everywhere than to have two? Likewise, if the concern is that Comrel is broken in some way, wouldn't it make more sense to fix it than to create another? If the concern is that you're not sure you trust the individuals in the current system, why would somebody else have more reason to trust the individuals in the new system, if the only thing changing are the names? If the changes are instead to make the process better, then why wouldn't we want to apply the better process everywhere? -- Rich