community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)
Date Thu, 26 May 2016 22:20:33 GMT
+Ross for explicit clarification.

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com> wrote:
> Hi, Roman,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Like I said, having a group of volunteers is fine as an intermediate
>> step of handling the concern.  The ultimate escalation channel has to be a
>> single officer appointed by the board.
>
> So, what approach would work for you?

Before I answer that question, lets clarify something:

> *   Keep the current mechanism (report to the archived alias president@apache)
>     but change the CoC text to indicate that reporting is not confidential.

My understanding from the explanation Ross gave me was that reports to
president@a.o were strictly confidential (which in my mind also translated into
lack of archives). Ross, can you please elaborate on this?

Thanks,
Roman.

> *   Report to the unarchived alias ombud@apache and require that the President
>     (or their delegate) be one of the addresses behind the alias.
> *   Report to individual volunteers but have the volunteers report something
>     about the incident to the President.
> *   Report to ombud@apache alias but have the volunteers behind
>     ombud@apache report something about the incident to the President.
> *   ...
>
>> Only having president@ there as an escalation channel gives me the needed
>> level of comfort to stand behind our CoC and be confident that even those
>> wishing ultimate anonymity and bringing us highest level of concerns from
>> the point of view of how it may backfire on the individual can be
>> accommodated.
>
> So if I understand correctly, your concern is that someone reporting a
> violation of the code of conduct may be subject to retaliation.  But isn't
> that possibility what we're trying to mitigate by moving the reporting
> mechanism away from the archived alias president@apache, which 700+ ASF
> Members (including emeritus Members) have access to?
>
>> During the good times we all feel like we're one big happy family and why
>> the heck won't we all get along and trust each other. But CoC and its
>> escalation policy is NOT written for those times.
>
> I would certainly agree that the escalation aspects of the CoC need to be
> well-handled, for the sake of all parties involved in any incident.
>
> But I would also say that the fact that we have a CoC, and that it is taken
> seriously and implemented well, also has a beneficial effect during the "good
> times".  It is good to know that the safety net is there.
>
> Marvin Humphrey

Mime
View raw message