On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 11:26 -0700, Eldon Koyle wrote: > Hi all, > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:25 AM Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote: > <snip> > > For those trying to undermine it with statements like "I'm worried > > I'll be thrown out of Debian if I make a single mistake", please give > > it a rest already. These are basic principles on how we want all > > people to interact. > <snip> > > I think there are many who are concerned about the process, not the CoC > itself. Here are the main concerns as I see them (at least from the few > who have come forward), and I believe these are the reasons that people > are worrying: > > 1. The process itself is not well documented (it's new, so expected) > > 2. The accused isn't allowed to address the claims against them > > 3. The a-h team is acting as both prosecution and judge/jury (usually > separated to reduce confirmation bias) There is a separation of roles. The Debian Account Managers (DAMs) have the delegated power to decide on expulsions and additions to the project members. (Latest delegation is at <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2018/03/msg00001.html>.) The anti-harassment team is the usual contact point for complaints and can recommend actions to the DAMs (or other teams) but doesn't have delegated powers (as I understand it). > 4. The proceedings are closed, so claims of unfairness aren't refuted > > 5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?) [...] There is, since any decision by the DPL or a delegate can be overridden by General Resolution. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Absolutum obsoletum. (If it works, it's out of date.) - Stafford Beer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part