Matt Prelude wrote on 09/02/2016 17:56:
Rowan
On 09/02/16 17:42, Rowan Collins wrote:
Without going into point by point discussion, I think you're
conflating several things here:
1) the right of the accused to know *what* they are accused of, which
I agree is fundamental
2) the right of the accused to know *who* is doing the accusing,
which may be implied by (1), but may also be in conflict with other
rights the accuser holds, and have to be balanced against them
3) the right of the public to scrutinise the entire process,
including all submissions by both parties
In particular, private mediation between two parties - granting (1)
and (2), but withholding (3) - is sometimes the most constructive
approach, at least until that mediation breaks down.
I'm inclined to agree with you in cases where mediation works, there's
no need for
the public to scritinise this, although most useful forms of private
mediation
would require the accuser and accused both to be 'present' at some
kind of 'sit
down' (via email) to attempt to diffuse the situation.
Agreed.
My concern is more about the rare case where all attempts fail and a
punishment is
on the horizon.
Indeed. A good process should include multiple stages of resolution;
this also helps lessen the fear of "policing" somewhat, if it is easier
to demonstrate that authority is to be used as a last resort, not a
routine instrument of control.
Regards,
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
