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

Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions



Hi!

Richard Hartmann:
> 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.

Correct! Thanks for making it clear :)

Cheers!
u.


Reply to: