Benjamin Berg <benja...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: ... > You are repeatedly insisting, that the Code of Conduct (CoC) committee > will never make use of these far reaching powers (only stopping at > permanent sanctions such as "removal of Foundation membership").
All I'm saying is that, in practical terms, the code of conduct committee isn't likely to remove someone from a hackfest, because it's not going to be at hackfests in the first place. > I find this rather contradictory. Why would the Board explicitly grant > such far reaching powers, if it does not expect the committee to ever > use them? > > If the Board trusts local organisers to collaborate with the CoC > committee and decide on sanctions together with them, then these powers > are not necessary. Yet, the Board has chosen to explicitly grant these > powers, meaning that organisers are instead compelled to implement > decisions by the committee. This appears to imply a distrust against > organisers to live up to their responsibilities. I can't answer this on behalf of the board: first, because we have a new board and second, because I don't remember the previous board discussing these precise questions. My personal view is that it makes sense for the committee to have these powers, since formal responsibility for maintaining the code of conduct at GNOME events should rest with the Foundation. It also allows the committee to act at a supra-event level - for example, if someone needs to be banned from future events. It's got nothing to do with distrust for event organisers. In future messages, please clearly state which questions are being addressed to the current Board of Directors. Allan _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
