I think it makes sense to make it public if the person of interest wishes to do so. After all that rule should only exist to protect the person of interest and not anyone else.
I may be far fetching here, but I think we are all mature enough to discuss this calmly as a community. No shitstorm needed.


On February 20, 2024 12:04:32 AM GMT+01:00, Martin Roth via coreboot <coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote:
Hi Paul,
My responses are inline.

Feb 19, 2024, 15:26 by pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de:

 Dear coreboot folks,


 Am 19.02.24 um 22:24 schrieb mina--- via coreboot:

 […]

 ### [Nico] Revoking Gerrit privileges as punishment.
  I would like to discuss two matters about this. Not sure about the order.
  ...

 In my opinion, some things are missing.

 1.  First, before “punishing” someone the person needs to be informed and also have the chance to be heard.

The "Punished" person can always email the coreboot leadership or the arbitration team, as mentioned in the code of conduct document in the section marked "Addressing Grievances"
Note that there has typically been a significant amount of discussion before any actions are taken, and I don't believe that this case was an exception to that.

 2.  If the person wants to discuss this publicly, that should be allowed.

While we can't stop someone from making it public, I think this is a bad plan and cannot do anything good for the community.

 3.  The length of the “punishment” must be limited.

When someone has been warned numerous times but simply can't stop themselves from violating the code of conduce, the consequences may be permanent. So far there's only been one permanent ban that I know of, but it was justified in my opinion. 

 I would keep the status quo. It’s my impression, that until know, these means were enough.

As I said in the minutes, the status quo is:
```
If a community member engages in unacceptable behavior, the community organizers may take any action they deem appropriate, up to and including a temporary ban or permanent expulsion from the community without warning (and without refund in the case of a paid event).
```
What's being added is supposed to be a clarification on that, not an expansion. Note that the current code of conduct does say "without warning".

https://doc.coreboot.org/community/code_of_conduct.html


 Kind regards,

 Paul

Take care.
Martin
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org