Felix Lechner <felix.lech...@lease-up.com> wrote on 20/02/2022 at 22:22:51+0100:
> 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. Ack, I'll try not to Cc you, but I note that it'd not be a big deal. >> 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"? If I insult you publicly, whatever you did privately or publicly, I still do insult you publicly, and that's against a CoC. It is my opinion that I still would deserve a warning for that insult. >> > 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 The DAM action should be withdrawn unless the membership affirms it in 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. The issue with that is that it can become a huge mud spread quite fast. (and btw, who does check whether the evidence was flawed?) -- PEB
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
