anti-harassment team membership concerns
Hi all,
I have serious concerns about the current membership of the
anti-harassment team.
Specifically, I notice that Molly recently joined the team and she is
also a member of the Outreach team.
This is not a personal attack on Molly, I simply believe that for
various reasons being in both teams at the same time is incompatible for
anybody.
At this particular moment, we also had some communications issues in the
GSoC team in 2018 and on that basis, I don't feel it would be
appropriate for any member of that team to suddenly transition to
anti-harassment. No individual member of the team deserves to be blamed
or scapegoated for that, all members of the team have some
responsibility for it. So this is not specific to Molly, we would all
be ineligible.
It just makes me feel really uncomfortable when one member of the
Outreach team might have been used as a scapegoat to sacrifice on the
high alter of Google and another attends the GSoC mentor summit and then
immediately jumps to anti-harassment like this.
Anti-harassment might also have a role to play if somebody wants to make
a complaint about Google's influence. Can somebody who attended the
summit at Google's expense be part of that discussion?
Generalizing the problem, I suggest that anti-harassment may need to
keep track of conflicts of interest, e.g. anybody involved in any other
team that experienced a complaint or a dispute probably shouldn't join
anti-harassment for some period, maybe 12 months or more, after the
complaint was closed.
Without such protections, it may appear that certain people are immune,
being favoured or that they get access to restricted information about
people they work alongside in another team. I'm not alleging this is
the case with Molly but that is the perception that would arise in any
situation like this.
Regards,
Daniel
--
Debian Developer
https://danielpocock.com
Reply to: