One obvious problem is CM2 reviews what CM1 did instead of independently coming to their own conclusions. Instead of being open to what might be ambiguous and finding otherwise, the bias would be to take the "This is bad" annotations or "I don't see any problem" and rubber stamp them. CM2 will have to work in the same office with CM1 so there would be that too.
In most states Juries have to be unanimous and can't discuss the details until they are sent for a verdict.
If both truly worked independently and both had the same verdict it would be a bit better.
[If] "reinstatement is deemed impossible, the request is denied and the reasons for it will be stated back to PM". - Reasons? Will you get to see the annotations or where you were said to have violated things or ignored requests to change something? Or will it be a blanket "You were found to have violated the Code of Conduct" and nothing more. This will open them up to defamation either way.
That's just the structural part. The other half is I don't think people trust them enough now, and have to go to the accusers to be reinstated.
And just the complexity. Someone who has voluntarily resigned over the drama now has to go through this process to get reinstated?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The reinstatement process is up, but I don't think you are going to like it
Date: 2019-10-21 09:06 pm (UTC)The CM decides if they should recuse themselves?
One obvious problem is CM2 reviews what CM1 did instead of independently coming to their own conclusions. Instead of being open to what might be ambiguous and finding otherwise, the bias would be to take the "This is bad" annotations or "I don't see any problem" and rubber stamp them. CM2 will have to work in the same office with CM1 so there would be that too.
In most states Juries have to be unanimous and can't discuss the details until they are sent for a verdict.
If both truly worked independently and both had the same verdict it would be a bit better.
[If] "reinstatement is deemed impossible, the request is denied and the reasons for it will be stated back to PM". - Reasons? Will you get to see the annotations or where you were said to have violated things or ignored requests to change something? Or will it be a blanket "You were found to have violated the Code of Conduct" and nothing more. This will open them up to defamation either way.
That's just the structural part. The other half is I don't think people trust them enough now, and have to go to the accusers to be reinstated.
And just the complexity. Someone who has voluntarily resigned over the drama now has to go through this process to get reinstated?