Re: Process improvements when excluding attendees from DebConf
Hi Daniel (2020.04.21_07:48:54_+0000)
> For me this boils down to: We don't have a pre-agreed, publicly documented
> process on how to handle (alleged) violations of the CoC.
>
> I do not think we should handle (alleged) violations differently whether
> they concern a DebConf or not.
I'd agree on that.
There are a couple of differences with physical events, though.
Things can be very time-sensitive, and decisions may be made in hours,
rather than weeks. And the local organisers, with the responsibility to
do that, are often less familiar with existing Debian teams, and
processes.
> We promise (in the DebConf CoC) "investigation and mediation" but do not
> qualify that. The Debian CoC does not have any clause about due process.
Yeah, I don't know how much we need here.
I suspect a process, with some oversight that somebody (DPL or DAM?) can
review and affirm the decision.
> As I said above, I'd much prefer a process for any type of (serious)
> allegation regardless of medium or venue. That's why I did not put the
> DebConf Committee (DCC) in above. The DCC has a specific focus (for good
> reasons) and the handling of CoC violations should ideally be generic.
Yeah, I think the DCC's only role here is in mentoring the local team.
And helpings to get this process into place.
SR
--
Stefano Rivera
http://tumbleweed.org.za/
+1 415 683 3272
Reply to: