From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-5389-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> 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 591EC138330 for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 19:07:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BB357E0CD0; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 19:07:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost01d.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost01d.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.7]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90AB9E0CCE for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 19:07:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.142] (helo=NeddySeagoon_Static) by smarthost01d.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org>) id 1bu2OD-00024Z-Ld for gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 19:07:01 +0000 Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 20:06:37 +0100 From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Comrel Improvements: Expectations of Privacy - action plan To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <8179deee-d2b7-1fa9-fe3d-e4d6798803f5@gentoo.org> (from prometheanfire@gentoo.org on Sat Oct 8 19:14:24 2016) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.5.2 Message-Id: <20cV1GFdOyYICgqYovNClF@cSeS2Lx5gP2w65Uq6Pugw> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-PdQcCdvN2zeCHnYILYe3" X-Originating-smarthost01d-IP: [62.3.120.142] Feedback-ID: 62.3.120.142 X-Archives-Salt: 2e5c6e02-8f73-4a72-8039-68edfd23d38e X-Archives-Hash: 685d7861d7af3aabbfb3c30e7e8091f9 --=-PdQcCdvN2zeCHnYILYe3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Team,=20 In general, I agree with this proposal. Its something we can build on=20 and flesh out. I've added a few pointers towards where I would like to see it headed.=20 On 2016.10.08 19:14, Matthew Thode wrote: > This is just a very simple proposal for what to / what should be set > as > policy. Hopefully this starts things moving again. >=20 > 1. When information is turned over to comrel who does it get shared > with, and under what circumstances? > 1. held within comrel until appeal (technically accessible by infra) > 2. available to trustees Needs to be available for audit by an elected group outside of comrel for several reasons. a) so that said elected group can provide an assurance to the community that comrel is operating as intended. b) to renew comrels mandate. Elected group so that if that group is perceived to be making incorrect=20 decisions, they can be replaced using existing processes. > 2. Do any members of the community have an obligation to report? Can > members of comrel/trustees/officers/council/etc be told information in > private without it being shared back with comrel for the official > record? Thats two questions > 1. no, but are heavily encouraged to Agreed on reporting obligations. > 3. Specifically, what information gets shared with people named in a > dispute of some kind? > 1. anonymized transcripts if feasible, else all info. > 4. Under what circumstances will information be shared with a > government authority/etc? > 1. when required > 5. Do subjects of comrel action generally have a "right to face their > accuser?" > 1. no That depends what "face their accuser" means. If it means anonymising the accuser, the answer needs to be yes. It makes mediation difficult or impossible unless the parties are known to one anther. If the case is so clear cut, that its clear that (further) mediation is=20 pointless, then I agree with the "No" but that should be rare. > 6. What should be communicated about comrel actions, both proactively > and when people inquire about them? > 1. as needed, project lead notified As needed is a bit vague. The outcome should be communicated to=20 anyone directly touched by the decision. The why and the guts of the=20 incident remain confidential as outlined above. > 2. in statistics In monthly statistics, which will have the side benefit of showing that comrel is still active. >=20 > --=20 > Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) >=20 >=20 --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods = --=-PdQcCdvN2zeCHnYILYe3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAABCAAGBQJX/Tg9AAoJEFZf0zWq3OcJ8OAP/jk3tSQXiosEREAKdgKuWhNp MYwA6R/Rh+VDAO6am2Z5EhCCXhqatReu81Ff1AIAdxLbp+PgRIQl4zomVd2TI69+ 6ThK89jAO+vSy/x1YMij9p3NeNrLmklZevfVMMizn/KboGMhYoKshZoPuJV0N/bw rEtg5innZzPYvWBahOmU+ZvSY9w5rIeAUc4MBkS1ZSrG/PaAuVu2Ngm6k1xYWg2R ETkQAQ6XtzYi3DseVW32dQJ/pYCdN2hT8REdc19T48NkGiJiyC1syCP71R31VC/u 05Wh1E9LdJqi3oin/AQLjDtQd9BEeOi4yVd9Vir1JpPzJZa68rPK4zRCwWMlXeHo n6h/wRFQ9ekeB6quPj+ewwLHlh1D1bOkn/M9tz8oORnP4VObs51k4wummrVy6U5D AM3PMxebah/ooxvotoAZ1nq+D3DbWLAyGDmtev1S1+/TynD4HT2cDifuWqARNtKM gfJb4ocuB9cuj5XmHMyffpvh2twVp27QR+RH8nHwF9WXZ+NMQfhdkeRry+dr3i78 x0sk8m4w6WeGh+QgGTuhtMR39VgoAONVC1EoClIN8e87NhbB19hHgJSuAdi15CUh yd4pzjqrLqlPlqbPppZlgQ6Mva5EQ0vsoCQVW5dxrai9R1ChSyqp7WkO2o8qqtjo PZFJiHTQ1pnBT6PVyuqF =sURz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-PdQcCdvN2zeCHnYILYe3--