Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions

[Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org>]

Hello!

Karsten Merker:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote:
>>
>>>> 4. NM Committee review
>>>> ----------------------
>>>> The NMC has 7 days to review the received material and discuss the
>>>> matter in
>>>> private. They are expected not to solicit further input, as this is not an
>>>> inquiry but a peer review of the DAM decision.
>>> I'm not sure whether I understand correctly what exactly is meant
>>> by "[The members of the NMC] are expected not to solicit further
>>> input" - does that mean that the members of the NMC are not
>>> allowed to ask questions about facts outside/above those
>>> explicitly presented by DAM and those contained in the written
>>> appealer statement, i.e. the NMC members are forbidden to do any
>>> sort of research about the situation on their own?  If yes, that
>>> would seem like an inappropriate limitation to me.
>>
>> As written, it is not an inquiry.  But a check of the decision
>> that DAMs have made.  NMC should not need to dig around for
>> long.  And should not be forced by someone claiming "but if you
>> only ask this one more, or this one, then you MAY see the
>> light".  Nah.  Its both sides giving their views, and the NMC
>> deciding on that.  End.  If one side can not present enough to
>> support their case, then their case fails, it shouldn't be up
>> to the NMC to dig out the stuff for them.
> 
> That point would be perfectly valid if DAM would not be part of
> the NMC and would not take part in the discussions, so that the
> NMC members would only decide on the written statements from both
> sides.  This isn't the case here, though.  DAM is part of the
> NMC, takes part in the discussions and can (and probably will,
> because that's just natural in such a situation) provide further
> input from their viewpoint based on how the discussion proceeds,
> but that's (for obvious reasons) not the case for the appealer,

It is written in the initial proposal that DAM is excluded from this
vote. Maybe they should also be excluded from discussion within the NMC
 explicitly. Would that solve the issues you raised?

> so this causes an asymmetry in the procedure.  Denying the the
> Non-DAM NMC members the right to inquire about things intensifies
> this asymmetry.

As said elsewhere, the sentence about inquiry needs clarification it seems.

Cheers,
Ulrike