Seeking feedback and/or approval on CWG working group drafts

[Jon Stanley]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:30 PM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> That sentence is part of my objection to this draft. I don't want the
> board to delegate the power to expel people for vague unspecified
> offenses to another person or body. I want the board to belly up to it
> if they really feel it is necessary and do the dirty work themselves
> to be blunt about it. That will give me confidence that the offense
> really rises to a very high level. What three people on some appointed
> committee decide doesn't give me the same confidence for example.

That's interesting that you say that. The original charter of the CWG
was to come up with these documents, which they did, and then the
further need for them and/or composition would be evaluated. I don't
think that the CWG as it currently exists ever expected that they'd be
the ones charged with enforcing these documents (and someone can
correct me if I'm sorely mistaken)

That being said, the Board also is not the Fedora traffic cops, nor
the Fedora Gestapo, and we AFAIK have no desire to enter into that
business. The Board consists of 9 people, who cannot be everywhere
that there is to be all at once. The people closest to the item being
debated are the ones best fit to deal with it. Of course, when that
doesn't work there needs to be some sort of last resort body to deal
with it. If the proposal is that that is the Board is that body and
that power cannot be further delegated, that's certainly valid. Being
we don't expect this type of thing to come up very often (in talking
to a member of the KDE CWG, they've had something like 3 incidents
over the past several years, one of which did lead to the permanent
expulsion of the person in question).

> I don't view that as a problem when it comes to permanent expulsion
> from the project. If you can't convince the FPL and the entire board
> then I think that penalty is too severe.

The difficulty here is if the person has friends on the Board, etc.
This is not uncommon, and I'd like to see something like a 2/3
majority. I'm not sure *anything* should require the decision be
unanimous (although we do strive for that in everything we do, not
just matters related to individual contributors).