Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-04-08

["M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@iee.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2427 bytes --]

On 03/04/18 02:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>  - overruling council (and comrel?) decisions with a 2:1 majority
>>
> While I could see this making sense for most Council/QA decisions, I'm
> skeptical of how this could work for Comrel, given that nobody would
> have anything to go off of, unless we made these matters public.
>
> I could see it possibly working if we made it clear that there is no
> expectation of privacy for anybody bringing a complaint, and that the
> entire matter would be made public if the accused wished to appeal it
> to a general resolution.  Then it would be up to the person who was
> subject to discipline to allow a general vote.  If they did not allow
> this, then the Council (or Comrel, if no appeal) would have the final
> say and it could not be appealed.  If they did allow this, then the
> entire record would be made public and available for a general vote.
> The accused would have full access to the record before deciding
> whether to make it public, so there would be no surprises.
>
> I'm not a super-big fan of this, but I see it as the only reasonable
> way to let Comrel decisions turn into a general resolution.  Otherwise
> people basically have to vote blind.
>
> On the flip side, it would let the accused leave quietly with no
> public defamation/etc if they so wished, but in doing so they wouldn't
> really have much room to complain about the process being closed,
> since they were the one who decided to keep it that way.  On the other
> hand, if they insisted on a public proceeding then everybody can
> decide for themselves what is appropriate.
>
> The main downside is that we'd need to make it clear to anybody
> issuing a complaint that they would not get a say in whether what they
> submit was shared with the accused or the public.  Otherwise we would
> be taking that decision out of the accused's hands, and it basically
> defeats the point in having this sort of appeal available.  This might
> potentially have a chilling effect on anybody who might want to bring
> a complaint, since it could become public if the accused so desired.
> Either way I think things like this are best made clear up-front so
> there are no surprises.
>
Pardon my unwanted opinion, but that sounds like a seriously verbose
'yes' .. or at least firm 'maybe' ...


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]