Hi, On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 12:55 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue <p...@debian.org> wrote: > > Cc-ing you, but if you prefer not being replied directly for lists on > which you're subscribed, please do tell.
Without specific requests to the contrary, I copy folks only on bugs and not on lists but please handle that as you see fit. My mail system deletes the duplicate automatically. > But for warnings, it'd > become quite too expensive to hold any sort of trial, especially when > the grounds for the warning are public and warrant for a warning > independently of what could have caused them. How can warnings ever be warranted "independently of what could have caused them"? > > The burden should be the > > other way around, i.e the membership should be forced to affirm a > > disciplinary DAM action if the accused does not mind the publicity. > > Upon failure, the accused should walk. > > I'm not sure to understand the meaning of the two last sentences, could > you please elaborate on these? With fewer than two disciplinary actions per year, it is not an undue burden on the membership to ratify punishments at the request of the accused. The DAM action should be withdrawn unless the membership affirms it in a general vote. It's better for DAM, too. Since the decision is made by the project as a whole, all accusations of bias are automatically moot. The defeat of the accused is final. It warrants no further review unless the evidence was flawed. Kind regards Felix Lechner
