Hi Daniel (2020.04.21_07:48:54_+0000) > For me this boils down to: We don't have a pre-agreed, publicly documented > process on how to handle (alleged) violations of the CoC. > > I do not think we should handle (alleged) violations differently whether > they concern a DebConf or not.
I'd agree on that. There are a couple of differences with physical events, though. Things can be very time-sensitive, and decisions may be made in hours, rather than weeks. And the local organisers, with the responsibility to do that, are often less familiar with existing Debian teams, and processes. > We promise (in the DebConf CoC) "investigation and mediation" but do not > qualify that. The Debian CoC does not have any clause about due process. Yeah, I don't know how much we need here. I suspect a process, with some oversight that somebody (DPL or DAM?) can review and affirm the decision. > As I said above, I'd much prefer a process for any type of (serious) > allegation regardless of medium or venue. That's why I did not put the > DebConf Committee (DCC) in above. The DCC has a specific focus (for good > reasons) and the handling of CoC violations should ideally be generic. Yeah, I think the DCC's only role here is in mentoring the local team. And helpings to get this process into place. SR -- Stefano Rivera http://tumbleweed.org.za/ +1 415 683 3272
