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 9AF051382C5 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 05:16:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CCD75E09B5; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 05:16:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (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 A2A3DE09AE for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 05:16:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.0.17] (cpe-72-227-68-175.maine.res.rr.com [72.227.68.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: desultory) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F7FC335C0C for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 05:16:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> <20180212165506.GA23201@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <1f63e6de-999d-e0cd-990b-8813293357d6@gentoo.org> From: Dean Stephens Message-ID: <8ea3dd80-bdba-5402-f648-33e43dbbf4e5@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:16:33 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: f3ef5a23-0ac6-4080-a229-1bd57d9837d0 X-Archives-Hash: 709bad919c108469959fac17336f0137 On 02/13/18 16:12, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Rich Freeman schrieb: >>>>> Suppose that the council decides to accept an appeal from comrel. Is it >>>>> a conflict of interest for a member of the council who is also a member >>>>> of comrel to vote in the appeal? If it isn't, it is at least a pretty >>>>> strong perception that it is. >>>>> >>>> Why? How? Exactly what sort of conflicting interest is supposed to be >>>> present? >>> >>> I think in Comrel vs. Council is not a conflict of interest, but rather >>> throwing the appeals process off balance. Can you expect someone to neutrally >>> review material and actions (question the authenticity of evidence, identify >>> potential misconduct, etc.) that they themselves used to build the case >>> against the reprimanded? >>> Given the interactions that I have had with Comrel members acting on behalf of Comrel (leaving aside interactions with Comrel members acting in other roles as I have no reason to track such interactions and they are not relevant here); yes, I would expect that of them. >> >> I hope that Comrel does not consider it their main duty to build cases >> against community members. They're supposed to investigate, mediate, >> and take action if necessary. They aren't prosecutors. > > (I'm taking this back to -project where it belongs) > > But typically only Comrel actions can be appealed. Investigations or > mediation not. > > > Best regards, > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > >