> On 11 Jun 2021, at 21:12, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 17:10, Kevin Smith <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> I’m just picking at replies here - as I said in the chatroom I think this is
> a generally positive direction and want to thank the people involved.
> (I did make two suggestions there)
>
>
> For the record (and my notes), I'll paraphrase these here:
>
> * "No person has any automatic right to join a chatroom, or write a XEP." in
> §3 ought to be something else, since writing a XEP doesn't need the XSF's
> permission as such.
>
> I'm not sure what this can be, but I accept that writing private extensions
> using the XEP format and publishing them independently might be considered
> "writing a XEP", and that's not within the XSF's purview.
I think I suggested some text at the time that was something like “No person
has any automatic right to have XEP submissions considered” or such. I’m just
concerned (perhaps for no good reason) that that ‘write a XEP’ might confuse
people wrt. their right (from our IPR policy) to modify XEPs etc. I believe I
expressed that I thought tweaking this would be a benefit, but not crucial.
>
> * There's limitations on what the XSF (via the Board) can sanction a member
> for; in particular removal of any rights stipulated in the bylaws.
>
> The ramifications of this one are really interesting. Is ejecting a member
> from the members mailing list allowed? Probably, but that may mean they're
> not notified about a meeting, which is a bylaw right (or a responsibility of
> the XSF at least). Members can be removed, but with difficulty. I wouldn't
> want this to be made any easier, either.
Squelching would presumably be allowed, but not removing their ability to see
notices or XSF business.
> It may be as simple as noting that XSF Members, while held to a higher
> standard as regards the Code of Conduct, have certain immunities with regards
> to potential sanctions, and so members may have to take that into account
> when voting them in.
That seems quite sensible.
>> On 11 Jun 2021, at 15:18, Dave Cridland <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> > The Conduct Team will always hand its recommendation on Sanctions or
>> > other Actions to the Board. The Board will discuss and vote on these
>> > "in camera" (ie, not in public and not minuted).
>>
>> It seems like there's not much point having a conduct team if the board
>> also has to relitigate their decisions. I'd just allow the board to
>> delegate this authority fully (which presumably they could do anyways
>> and this document doesn't curtail board power?)
>>
>>
>> I was in two minds about this, so thanks for raising it.
>>
>> I went for Board ratification of decisions mostly for the ease of managing
>> the authority, but also in part because then the Conduct Team becomes an
>> investigatory and deliberatory team instead of both judge and jury.
>>
>> But you're right in that this might end up with Board relitigating the
>> decisions rather than just providing the final go-ahead decision and acting
>> as a blame deflector.
>
> I think that if we were to find that the Board consistently disagrees with
> decisions made by the Conduct Team, the Board would likely have to look at
> who they’d put on the Conduct Team.
>
> If the Board has to approve the Conduct Team’s decision by really looking at
> it and considering if it’s reasonable, is that not basically going through
> the appeals procedure pre-emptively?
>
>
> I don't think so.
>
> Where there are valid appeals, this may mean the Conduct Team hasn't done its
> job right in finding the facts, or it may mean that despite their best
> efforts, there was information they were unaware of.
<heavy snip/>
I think, from your response, that my point wasn’t clear. If the Board were to
be required to do a full analysis of whether the Conduct Team’s decision was
correct in the first place, there seems there'd be little point in having an
appeals process of going to Board to check the Conduct Team’s decision -
they’ll already have done so.
> I’m not sure I have a strong sensible opinion on this one, it seems
> non-trivial.
>
> Notwithstanding the above, it's not necessary for the Board to make the final
> decision - I did it that way based on a virtual coin-flip, but fully
> delegating the authority seems fair too.
>
> Or indeed partially - we could involve Board when sanctions or public
> statements are felt to be needed by the Conduct Team, but otherwise let them
> get on with it and just report.
>
> Honestly, I haven't even decided if I'm ambivalent on this point.
I think there’s an implied statement that actions are somehow more significant
than non-actions, but I think that’s probably not true. Actions are a statement
that the behaviour was unacceptable, non-actions are a statement that the
behaviour (or resolution to it in the ‘girls’ example) is acceptable, which is
probably just as potentially harmful. So I’d suggest whatever is done for one
is done for the other, in terms of checks and balances.
/K
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
