Steve McIntyre wrote: > Within the team, we've brainstormed about this and come up with the following > to describe our role and responsibilities. We'd like to discuss it now with > the rest of the project. Feedback welcome please!
Hi Steve, that looks good (I especially like the "Examples of things the team does *not* do"), but I think you should also add something on how the team will be handling confidential information that it's going to have access to as part of its job. I suppose it won't be easy to strike a good balance between the right to privacy, the right of accused people to know what they're accused of and by whom and to defend themselves, the right of victims to not having to confront their abusers, and so on. So this deserves to be thought through carefully and clear guidelines should be set. Scott Kitterman wrote: > From what does the team believe they derive their authority to do things like > interpret the CoC and to whom is the team accountable? Norbert Preining wrote: > As "just another group of Debian Developers" I am not sure how you can usurp > the right to exegesis of the CoC? My understanding is that the team is expecting to receive a formal delegation from the DPL which would give them such authority. Given also that they are going to handle confidential information (see above), my opinion is that a delegation is indeed necessary. However, I'd also observe that it's quite common in Debian for people to take over a specific responsibility and be granted a de facto "monopoly" over it without a formal delegation. For example, maintainers take ownership of their packages without being delegated, yet everybody accepts that it is a very bad thing to act on a package against the maintainer's will. That isn't really different from the Community Team claiming ownership of interpreting the CoC simply because they were the first who started working on that. Gerardo
