On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:29 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org>
> wrote:
> > On 13/04/18 23:25, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> >> One form of transparency I have suggested is that when
> >> disciplinary actions are given the person being disciplined should be
> >> given an explanation for why the action is being taken, and that at
> >> their option that explanation would be made public verbatim.  I've
> >> seen Debian do this and I thought it was a good way to balance
> >> privacy/transparency/risk.  The person being disciplined can at their
> >> option keep the whole matter quiet, or they can have it publicized in
> >> an official way.  However, if they decide to publish their own account
> >> of events while denying Gentoo permission to publish its side, then
> >> those listening will probably be skeptical that they're getting the
> >> full story.  Since Gentoo would not make any public statements without
> >> permission from the person impacted there would be little risk of
> >> legal repercussions.
> >>
> > I think that if this is the process, people are more likely to buy into
> > it, and accept that if that's the way it works, they can take it or
> > leave it - and the risk is more theirs than that of the organisation. I
> > think that in itself will garner more respect than the current situation
> > at least ..
> >
>
> I hate to drag out this tangent further, but there is another matter
> that I think that the community should probably vote on: whether
> Comrel will accept testimony/evidence/complaints that will be withheld
> from the target of the complaint.
>
> Currently the policy is that this kind of evidence will be accepted,
> which generates frustration because people feel like they cannot
> confront their accuser.  The obvious defense of this policy is that
> without it some would not come forward with legitimate complaints out
> of fear of retaliation (by the person they're accusing, or others who
> care about them), or just concern for having their names come up in
> Google associated with the incident, since they might trust Gentoo to
> keep it private but not the person they're having problems with.
>
> I'm sure there are plenty of examples of organizations that do it
> either way, and since we aren't an employer/etc I don't think we
> really have any legal constraints here.
>
> Either way the policy should be clear to anybody bringing forward a
> complaint so that they can trust us to keep things confidential, or
> not, in accordance with the policy.
>

I'm totally supportive of this conversation, but I think its tough to be OP
and have your threads de-railed like this; I'd really prefer if we forked
this thread to have it.

Whether or not we should do any of these things is really orthogonal to
this GLEP which just seeks to clarify the existing state.

-A


>
> --
> Rich
>
>