+Ross for explicit clarification. On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > Hi, Roman, > > Thanks for the review. > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <r...@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
