3 ms·

Hm. Perhaps you're right. I think it's fair for people to wonder this question aloud without being thought "scary", though, don't you? I mean, from the perspec

Hm. Perhaps you're right. I think it's fair for people to wonder this question aloud without being thought "scary", though, don't you? I mean, from the perspective of say, folks that feel they were harassed (hypothetically), they would want to know who they should feel comfortable expressing their concerns to in the future, and who is or is not sympathetic to those concerns. Private votes that don't align with public behavior would also be concerning, and private votes encourage deceptive acts. For what it's worth, when Congress votes to censure, impeach, or remove, these are public votes. I don't think the jury analogy is quite apt, as the people voting were not selected in that manner. Is that fair?

geofft 9y ago
> I mean, from the perspective of say, folks that feel they were harassed (hypothetically), they would want to know who they should feel comfortable expressing their concerns to in the future, and who is or is not sympathetic to those concerns. Private votes that don't align with public behavior would also be concerning, and private votes encourage deceptive acts. I think that this is an extremely important point, given that the CoC says that the reporting path is an email alias that goes to the entire TSC. If the CoC's reporting path were some other group, I think it'd be a very different situation. (There are of course downsides to having a separate antiharassment group that has different power in the project from the core team, and may end up disagreeing with the core team, but it would avoid this particular problem.)