Involuntarily leaving SC: Allow PM on forum #2393
Conversation
ansible-documentation-bot
bot
added
the
sc_approval
docs/docsite/rst/community/steering/steering_committee_membership.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
felixfontein
added
backport-2.17
|
While we're at it, I think we should also allow discussing Ansible Community Code of Conduct violations via PM. What do you think? |
Maybe we move that to a separate discussion. Though I'd like to understand what (if anything) can be improved. |
|
recheck |
Sure, no problem: Revert "Allow CoC violations via PM"
I'm not sure what you mean. Since most of the discussions take place on the forum, allowing to use the forum / PMs for this process instead of using emails and therefor a different communication channel sounds like a simplification (and therefor an improvement) to me. Or did I get you wrong? |
|
Hi folks - before we merge, we'd need to understand how 'private' a forum DM is. As in can all forum Admins see it? Can forum moderators see it? I dunno the answer to either question but I'll try to dig them up. |
How "private" is an email if you don't use E2E encryption? We don't require S/MIME or PGP for email communication as far as I know. So I should say that a PM is better because only the forum admins might see it. An unencrypted email is far less secure IMHO. |
Regarding Code of Conduct. If we want to review that I'd prefer that to be done clearly and as a dedicated separate task. |
|
|
||
| * If the answer is negative, the initiator asks the person to :ref:`step down voluntarily<Voluntarily leaving process>`. | ||
|
|
||
| #. In case there is no response from the person within a week after the email was sent or if the person agreed to step down but has no time to do it themselves, the initiator: | ||
| #. In case there is no response from the person within a week after the message was sent or if the person agreed to step down but has no time to do it themselves, the initiator: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is one week a bit short? Even I sometimes go on vacation for a full week. I know others do so for two weeks or more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- The week was there before.
- This is only for starting a discussion among the SC, not about removing the person.
(Which also means we likely had that discussion already in the past ;) )
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, it would be a week longer than before ;-)
docs/docsite/rst/community/steering/steering_committee_membership.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
There are different opinions on whether we should require a direct email or not, so I'll convert this to a draft for now. |
How about as Felix suggest just sending them both at the same time? Feels like not a great complication of the process and we don't need to keep it in mind, and it doesn't make the process any longer. Though I'm also good with just PM |
Co-authored-by: Felix Fontein <[email protected]>
I think we should change the process and allow to contact possibly inactive SC members via a private message on the forum.
After all, we've moved most (all?) discussions and votes to the forum. So we can assume that SC members are active there, can't we?
edit: discussion on forum