Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> It's pretty common that the outcome is explicitly not communicated to
> the complainants, since it's actually none of their business. They
> should receive a «we have received your complaint» message, though.
This isn't my experience of complaints processes used by various
activist groups I've helped over the years. I don't understand how
anyone would have faith in a system where they can't spot the difference
between a rejected complaint and negligence by inaction.
Here's a complaints procedure one campaign group used recently:
http://www.highways.gov.uk/about-us/contact-us/complaints-procedure/how-to-make-a-complaint/
- the complainant is kept informed at each step (or at least supposed to
be, but they're not in fact, which is the subject of another complaint ;-) )
Can you show that it's pretty common not to respond to complainants, please?
I suggest that providing some sort of summary response to complaints
would be analogous to Enrico's good advice in
https://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/ch02s05.html#comm-howto-longthreads -
if we don't want conduct complaints to become long threads, it would be
good to follow those tips.
Need we force this by amending the Code of Conduct?
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/
--
Please respect the privacy of this mailing list. Some posts may be declassified
3 years after posting as per http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
Archive: file://master.debian.org/~debian/archive/debian-private/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the web form at <http://db.debian.org/>.
|
|
