Tennessee Leeuwenburg <tleeuwenb...@gmail.com> writes: > However, it doesn't really make clear what organisers should do, what > their responsibilities and empowerments are.
That is IMO a strength. If the policy is overly specific, it runs the risks of not being read, not being understood, not being followed, and not being trusted. > I think a standardised process would be nice, but allowing for a lot of > flexibility and recourse if an issue doesn't fit with that. I agree. Do you think the example policy lacks that? > For example, a basic record of the incident should be made. That is an explicit part of the example policy, yes. > I see this as analagous to a dispute situation in a workplace. In such > a situation, the various parties involved can choose to have the issue > dealt with formally or informally. In a difficult situation, calm > judgment can often go out the window -- not necessarily due to any > ill-doing, but just due to a failure to think of the right thing to do > or what some sensible steps to make might be. I don't see a need to make that all a part of the formal policy document. You seem to be advocating "use best judgement" there anyway, right? -- \ “Ice Water? Get some onions — that'll make your eyes water!” | `\ —Groucho Marx | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ melbourne-pug mailing list melbourne-pug@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
