<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Ubuntu">Dear TB<br>
<br>
This is not a technical topic, but a governance one on which I'd
appreciate your perspective.<br>
<br>
When we set all this up, we knew from observation that a code of
conduct and a firm governance structure would be important, and by
and large I think our arrangements in this regard have helped us
balance complex webs of interests for the best benefit of all
participants in the project. </font><br>
<font face="Ubuntu">The CC plays a critical role in the project; a
large part of their responsibility is to act as a trusted and
neutral arbiter of differences between teams or individuals in
Ubuntu. In addition to regular meetings with different councils
and team leads, and the running of the selection processes for
those teams the CC acts as a neutral trustee of the values encoded
in the CoC. There have been a number of occasions when individuals
have been asked to step down from positions of responsibility or
membership after complaints raised by one party against another,
arbitrated b the CC.<br>
<br>
It has been pointed out that a potential conflict of interest
arises if it is a member of the CC who is a party to such a
dispute. We have general guidance that a conflicted party should
recuse themselves from such deliberations. If it were a single
member of the CC, then the remainder could probably handle the
issue in a way that was seen to be independent. If however the
issue is more systemic, then we might need to bolster the ranks of
those able to weigh in, independently. While the general idea is
that "appeal is to the BDFL", in some cases, I too might be
obviously conflicted on a matter.<br>
<br>
A suggestion to address this is that the TB, as a very
well-respected team that is elected with support of a broad
segment of the project (though not as broad as the CC), would be a
useful source from which to draw independent perspectives in such
a corner case.<br>
<br>
The suggestion feels reasonable and appropriate to me. I think we
would all want to avoid an infinite loop of appeals, or the TB
being drawn into every matter on which the CC makes a tough
decision, but I think in the decade-long history of the project
there have perhaps been only one or two such issues and I think we
would be able to scope this practice to the simple case where
there is no non-CC complainant , or where the CC or substantial
members of the CC are direct parties to a dispute. I like the idea
that, when needed, we would have an obvious and pre-selected place
to seek independent perspectives rather than me (as a potentially
conflicted party) having to constitute a fresh, independent body.<br>
<br>
I am writing to see how you, as a representative TB, feel about
the proposal. If you are comfortable with handling such
discussions in the very unlikely event they were to occur, that
would be sufficient support for me to suggest it as a good
practice to the CC for future reference. As the project gets a
little older, it's not inappropriate for us to endeavour to be a
little wiser too, so put this email in that bucket :)<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>