Re: [VOTE] Contributor Guidelines, and Updates to Code of Conduct progress

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]