[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Renewed appeal to the technical committee about the FransAndCo.Vs.Sven dispute



Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Renewed appeal to the technical committee about the FransAndCo.Vs.Sven dispute"):
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:43:08 +0000, Ian Jackson
> <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> said:  
>
> >    Please do not contact the committee again on this matter.
>         ...unless there are significant new developments.

I can see where you're coming from here.  However I don't think that
will do the job because "there are significant new developments" is
too subjective a condition.  I think you might find arguments that
some allegation of interpersonal misbehaviour, or perhaps even time
having passed, constituted `significant new developments'.

We could say something like `without permission of <someone>' but that
is just setting <someone> up for constant badgering.

Remember that we are only telling _Sven_ not to contact the committee
again.  If he is able to convince anyone else that there is a problem
the TC can solve, then I hope we can rely that person to bring the
matter to us.

> > 6. The Project Leader should delegate (to a group rather than to an
> >    individual, but perhaps to an existing group or groups) mediation
> >    and disciplinary powers, including the power to intervene
> >    informally, give formal advice and reprimands, rule on social
> >    disputes, and take disciplinary action short of expulsion.
> 
>         I think that this has been tried before, and another is under
>  way;  and I am not so sanguine that anything real is likely to emerge
>  from it.  I don't think this is a matter of delegation or a personal
>  conflict between the DPL and a developer; so just passing the buck to
>  a new person does not seem like a solution.

The DPL seems unwilling to grasp the nettle by the horns personally.
Perhaps there is a worry about percieved lack of neutrality, or
perhaps AJ thinks he have more important things to be doing (in which
case he's probably right!)

Most of the previous mediation attempts were conducted by people
without any enforcement ability.  What I am asking here is for the DPL
to delegate the ability to _decide a final disposition_ of this
matter.

Is that not sufficiently clear ?  I could expand on it:

   The Project Leader should delegate mediation and disciplinary
   powers, including the power to intervene informally, give formal
   advice and reprimands, rule on social disputes, and take all kinds
   of disciplinary action short of expulsion.

   We are not optimistic that further attempts by mediators without a
   full range of powers (both to decide and to enforce their rulings)
   will do anything but prolong this particular dispute.  Breakdown of
   relations between the losing side and the arbitrator is to be
   expected.

   (If the Project Leader makes a standing delegation to arbitrate on
   these kinds of disputes, it should be to a group rather than to an
   individual, but perhaps to an existing group or groups.)

Ian.



Reply to: