Handling details may be too specific?

[nedbat]

I'm adapting the CoC for Boston Python, and therefore reading it much more closely than I have in the past.

Twice it makes an implicit acknowledgement that an incident could involve one of the responders ("In the event of a conflict of interest, ..."). But then later:

After an incident responder takes the report, they will immediately consult with the lead incident responders (Sage Sharp, Ewa Jodlowska, and Ernest W. Durbin III).

This seems to contradict the conflict of interest protection from earlier. I suspect the truth is that this step is more complicated. It should be something like, "unless one of those responders is involved in the incident."

For my own use, I'm inclined to be less specific about the precise steps taken. I think the important things to say here are that the incident will be taken seriously, that the response will be timely, and what the reporter can expect. I don't know if you want to make this section more detailed, or less, or leave it alone.

[nedbat]

And then I read more about conflicts of interest later on.... So perhaps all is fine?