On 6/6/18 11:24, David G. Johnston wrote:
Yeah, while it is pretty much self-evident I would agree that stating it explicitly would benefit the document. Both parts.
On the topic of privacy - who exactly, from an administrative aspect, has access to the systems that house these kinds of confidential communications? Do these emails end up in PostgreSQL.org servers long-term or is it mainly transient distribution and only individual's personal email accounts, with whatever hosting provider they choose, hold the messages long-term?
I was just thinking the same question. Given the technical nature of our audience, it's fair to assume many people will think about this. It's not just about technology either; if someone considers reporting harassment they should have confidence that friends on the core team won't talk about the report at the bar. I don't think these things are self-evident; it's sometimes obvious what the right thing is to do, but frankly there are too many cases where people didn't do the right thing in the past. That's why there's generally high relational and professional risk for people to report harassment.
Maybe something general like "Confidentiality will be maintained; the committee/core member in question will not gain access to any information from the report or proceedings directly or indirectly at any point in time."
I could see some value to stating it. But this isn't a requirement, and I also highly value the concision of the current draft. So we'll see what happens. :)
-Jeremy
--
Jeremy Schneider
Database Engineer
Amazon Web Services