Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:27 AM Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> wrote:
[...]
> Anthony Towns:
[...]
> > Having the boss's decision reviewed by people who report directly to
> > the boss is kind of a dodgy structure; and people on the new member
> > committee will probably want to maintain good relations with DAM, at
> > least if they want to continue doing new member work.
>
> I cannot see a problem here. The vote of NMC will be secret, so there is
> no way that DAM could know about who voted what.
[...]
> > (Another difference between the proposed process and court appeals is
> > that appeals courts can provide detailed opinions as to why the original
> > decision was wrong which helps avoid making the same mistakes in future;
> > this process doesn't really have that feature).
> There could be a _non-mandatory_ reasoning written by the NMC to DAM if
> a decision is overturned.
Those two are mutually exclusive.
Assuming best case and that the text is piped through Secretary to
avoid sender addresses: It would be an undue burden for dissenting NMC
members to find each other in a truly secret ballot, let alone have
them write something in a way which ensures DAM can't deduct from the
style of writing, points raised, and timing who's among the set of
people. Add that everyone in that group would know how many dissenting
votes there were so you even know how many dissenters you would need
to find.
Richard
Reply to: