[IAEP] Sugar Labs Community Response Team

[James Cameron]

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:38:36AM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Hilary Naylor <hnaylor at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >   I was very surprised to learn that the Ombudsman's ruling is not
> > binding.  That would certainly make it even harder to find people
> > to serve in that role.
> 
> The ruling is binding. What is lacking is any mechanism for
> enforcement.

The board could enforce the ruling in some way; by creating a
mechanism specific to the ruling.

A response team would face the same problem.

A change to the terms of membership could be to make membership
conditional on accepting a ruling; although the existence of the
ombudsman and the board already implied this was an obligation of
membership.

> >   I have a suggestion for a modification to the proposal for a
> > Response Team. Rather that a permanent Team, make it a Team that
> > is created as the need arises, and that the 3 members are agreed
> > to by the persons in dispute, and that both (or all) those in
> > dispute agree to abide by the Team's decision. Where should these
> > Team members come from? -- All Sugar Labs community members are
> > potential Team members by default except for the current SLOBs
> > (and SLOBs candidates if there are any). Team members would be
> > drawn by random selection, people may opt-out or be rejected by
> > one or more of the disputees, and selection continues until there
> > are three.
> 
> It sounds like you are proposing a jury of one's peers. But I think
> the need goes well beyond making a ruling. There is a good deal of
> investigation and mediation that is not typical of the
> responsibilities given to a jury. I think that the role of ombudsman
> (and/or membership on a Response Team) requires a level of maturity
> and experience that would be hard to guarantee in your proposed
> approach.

It would also take a long time; first to select the jury, then for the
jury to communicate.  An independent ombudsman already chosen was a
faster process design.  That the ruling was not enforced is a
different issue.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/