On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Joe Schaefer > <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: >> Patch looks pretty straightforward Marvin. > > It may very well be. In fact, if it looks so straightforward you should be > able > to provide a diff in no time at all. Please do so at your earliest > convenience.
Several folks pointed out: https://paste.apache.org/3AuO to me which I missed. Apologies for that. Now that I'm looking at the modification I'm very, very strongly -1 on it. 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. 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. 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. For more on why this is a much more involved subject I highly recommend reading this: http://www.amazon.com/Bravehearts-Whistle-Blowing-Snowden-Mark-Hertsgaard/dp/1510703373 One again, to recap: -1 Thanks, Roman.
