Re: Events Code of Conduct: Effects on Hackfests

On Thu, 2018-07-19 at 11:21 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
[I'm replying as someone who helped to draft the CoC, and who was on
the board when it was approved. The CoC committee is responsible for
applying the code, and we have a new board now.]

Benjamin Berg <benjamin sipsolutions net> wrote:
The Code of Conduct Committee charter[1] explicitly grants committee
members the following rights for any "GNOME event":

 * Issuing warnings
 * Banning individuals from events
 * Halting or cancelling talks
 * Removing individual privileges and responsibilities

In how far are these rights applicable to Hackfests?

The board voted in favour of this charter, as written. "GNOME events"
include hackfests. However, in practical terms, it isn't envisaged
that members of the CoC committee will be at hackfests. If the
committee receives a report, it is probably only going to be able to
respond after the event has ended, so I'm not sure how many of these
powers would apply.

I agree that this is more of a theoretical question rather than
something that is likely to happen soon.

However, I don't think your response clearly answers my question. And I
do think it is important to understand possible implications of Board
decisions as they may directly affect community members who organise

My current understanding of your response is, that the CoC committee
holds the all of the above powers for all "GNOME events" (unless maybe
an explicit exception has been made). Is that interpretation correct?

The response guidelines[2] state:

"It is your responsibility to make a record of any Code of Conduct
violations you become aware of, and to share those records with the
Code of Conduct Committee."

Is this a requirement for hackfest organisers?

The incident response guidelines are guidelines, rather than a hard
set of rules. They were primarily written with the Code of Conduct
committee and code of conduct teams in mind. So formally speaking, I
wouldn't say that the guideline you've quoted is a requirement.

That sounds reasonable in principle.

Does these mean that "Section V: Data retention" is purely a suggestion
that events should adopt? As I understand it right now, the consequence
would be that all "GNOME events" are free to adopt a data retention
policy of their choosing.

That said, my view is that, if a hackfest organiser is aware of a
serious incident at their event, they ought to inform the Code of
Conduct Committee.

There have been discussions in the past that this may trigger data
protection and export regulations. Is there an official opinion on
whether such regulations are relevant, and, if yes, whether small
events may be expected to e.g. sign a contract with the Foundation to
ensure such data exchange can happen legally.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]