Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com> <20181020135118.GG32218@kroah.com>
 <20181020192845.48b8b860@alans-desktop> <dfabf8b10d3e825c9a7f6c110e042dc72e50217d.camel@hammerspace.com>
In-Reply-To: <dfabf8b10d3e825c9a7f6c110e042dc72e50217d.camel@hammerspace.com>
From:   "jonsmirl@gmail.com" <jonsmirl@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 20 Oct 2018 15:14:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKON4OxLLhUkPGGbSF_ZtBC18fzZo44t1gUSsbYA0d2vCPfosg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact
 email address
To:     trondmy@hammerspace.com
Cc:     gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        mishi@linux.com, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 2:47 PM Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:28 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated
> > > to
> > > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an
> > > incident.
> > > +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted
> > > +separately.
> >
> > Unfortunately by ignoring the other suggestions on this you've left
> > this
> > bit broken.
> >
> > The committee can't keep most stuff confidential so it's misleading
> > and
> > wrong to imply they can. Data protection law, reporting laws in some
> > countries and the like mean that anyone expecting an incident to
> > remain
> > confidential from the person it was reported against is living in
> > dreamland and are going to get a nasty shock.
> >
> > At the very least it should say '(except where required by law)'.
> >
> > There is a separate issue that serious things should always go to law
> > enforcement - you are setting up a policy akin to the one that got
> > the
> > catholic church and many others in trouble.
> >
> > You should also reserving the right to report serious incidents
> > directly
> > to law enforcement. Unless of course you want to be forced to sit on
> > multiple reports of physical abuse from different people about
> > someone - unable to tell them about each others report, unable to
> > prove
> > anything, and in twenty years time having to explain to the media why
> > nothing was done.
> >
>
> ...and then you get into questions about how this committee will
> respond to queries from said law enforcement, and indeed to which legal
> systems the committee will or will not report incidents.
>
> Why would we want to be going down the path of trying to handle reports
> about "serious incidents" in the first place? That seems way out of
> scope for a code of conduct arbitration scheme. Even attempting to
> counsel people as to whether or not they should report incidents can
> get you in trouble in many parts of the world.
>

Which is why the lawyers need to go over this document and I haven't
seen anything posted from them. In the same vein Mauro is concerned
that the way this is code is written it is a binding contract in
Brazil.


> --
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
>
>


--
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com