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

Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social committee proposal]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 05:19:27PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:19:46AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> >   * The communication of soc-ctte members with people about their
>> >     behaviour which might eventually become a matter of committee
>> >     deliberation should be kept reasonably private, to prevent
>> >     unnecessary escalation
>> Basicaly, any communication concerning the "proactive" part shall be
>> private. The person receiving the warning can publicize it by themselves
>> if they so desire (but it's certainly not expected to be the general rule,
>> it's just to avoid the criticism of lack of transparency).
>One thing that I hadn't had the chance to mention (because other people were
>simply being louder than me ;) was that the "proactivity" still needs to be
>documented in an internal archive of soc-ctte, so that there is a clear
>record of exactly what was done in the name of the committee and when.
>That is - whenever someone takes such a private action, they don't Cc: the
>public mailing list, but they do Cc: the private archiving alias which
>quietly records the event.

Yup. I made a point of mentioning this private archive at the meeting,
but we were quite busy and maybe not everybody heard/remembered it.

>This archive would obviously be useful for the simple purpose of
>backtracking what went on in case someone complains; but at the same time
>it would be a bare-bone teaching tool for new members of soc-ctte.

Yes, absolutely.


>> So we sort of decided that it should:
>> - make ACL decisions concerning the Debian lists (the listmasters clearly
>>   indicated that they don't want to take those by themselves)
>>   This includes the possibility to decide ML bans for DD as well as
>>   for non-DD.
>One thing we didn't mention here was any documented limits to these
>decisions. I guess everyone implied that this would be left to the
>discretion of soc-ctte, hoping that they wouldn't do anything drastic.

Yes, that was my understanding.

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
We don't need no education.
We don't need no thought control.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: