On 6 June 2018 at 19:22, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Yeah, somebody else made a similar point upthread. I guess we felt that
>> the proper procedure was obvious given the structure, but maybe not.
>> I could support adding text to clarify this, perhaps along the line of
>
> Hmm ... actually, there's another special case that's not discussed,
> which is what happens if a committee or core member wants to file a
> complaint against someone else? They certainly shouldn't get to rule
> on their own complaint. So maybe change "complaint against" to
> "complaint by or against" in my proposed addition, and then we're good.
Which brings up the further complication of in which order are things
dealt with?
If people file complaints against each other. Is there benefit in
rushing to file a complaint?
"The Committee will inform the complainant and the alleged violator of
their decision at that time." That is unclear.
Are complaints considered AFTER information has been collected from
both parties? If so, it doesn't matter who complains first, both
parties will get their say.
But if the person being complained about only hears of the complaint
after judgement has been made this means there is benefit in being the
first to complain, which will encourage people to complain early so
they can get their boot in first. And also cause double the volume of
complaints, since it will be necessary to counter-complain in order
for the alleged violator to get their say.
Would it not be better to consider arbitration as the first step in
dispute resolution? Do we need judgement by a committee as the first
step? Do we even have time for judges to judge?
Thanks for working on this.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services