An alternate proposal to answer the guidelines question.

[Peter Jones]

> In general this sounds reasonable, I especially like how this procedure 
> normally shouldn't come into play, but only becomes active under 
> exceptional circumstances.

I really think this is *the* crucial criterion for a good plan.

> However the FESco apoints an arbitrator part wories me, the maintainer 
> should have a say in this too. There are some people in this community 
> who (unfortunately) mix about as well as fire and water.

Yeah, I didn't want to codify too strictly here; FESCO needs some levity 
in order to do a good job.

In general, FESCO should appoint an arbitrator who a) isn't known to 
have problems dealing with either party, nor with the guys doing the 
guidelines, and b) doesn't have a specific vested interest in the 
package in question.

Probably also they shouldn't be a FESCO member.  If there's a serious 
conflict between people that's really getting out of hand, they and the 
board ultimately need to be the cooler heads that have to prevail.

So really, the rationale behind my proposal is to leave FESCO ultimately 
*accountable* for resolution of disputes, but codifies a way that they 
can (and shall) appoint somebody reasonable from the community to act as 
ombudsman, and empowers that person to fulfill their responsibility.

The real rule for everybody here is still "don't be an asshole".

-- 
   Peter