On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 10:03 PM Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 15:42 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: > > We neglected to make available the facts behind our decision quickly (In some cases we were dealing with situations where reporters wanted to remain anonymous > > This strikes me as problematic. > > Why should there be a right to anonymity in this process? This is > essentially a technical/process dispute, right? I see no indication > that Peter has been accused of a particularly heinous crime or a CoC > violation or anything like that. I'm having trouble seeing how anything > that doesn't rise to that level could warrant a process involving > anonymity for 'reporters' and behind-closed-doors FESCo discussions. > Has there been any suggestion that anyone would maliciously target > folks who raised honest concerns about Peter's (or anyone else's) PP > actions? If not, why the secrecy? Having worked in fields where anonymous reporting are allowed to be made and the report was under that protection one can never, ever, de-mask those reports (without a controlling legal authority order to do so) without losing all credibility now, and into all futures (and while this probably does not apply here (i did have to deal with it), one might even be violating laws that protect those anonymous reporters if one de-masks the reports). One can certainly request that the reporter agree to de-anonymization, but it must not be coerced nor penalized nor rewarded, just an option. While it will not work in all cases, the part of the organization that is tasked with evaluating the reports and making public any results will often turn the details into summaries such as "An individual X was reported to perform inappropriate action Y" (X is never identified, and Y is typically also not identified if it can be used to identify the issue) which are devoid of almost all of the salient details but demonstrate generalities. Almost no one is happy with that, but it is about the best one can do(*). If the community believes that anonymous reports should not be allowed in the future, that is something to consider, but do be aware that that means some issues will not be reported "for reasons". There is no great answer here, just various compromises that it is likely nor all people will agree upon. Personally, I appreciate that anonymous reports are allowed, and that someone will take the reports sufficiently seriously to do some research to establish their validity and determine next steps (if any). Gary (*) An example for this case might be of the form: "FESCo has decided to remove PP capability from an individual for actions that FESCo has determined as being inappropriate. The details will be kept confidential". Nothing more. No followup. Ever. Given the reality of other information, anyone with clue could determine the who in this particular case (the PP group membership is determinable), but it is about the best one can do. -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
