Re: [Ksummit-discuss] New CoC and Brendan Eich

[Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5639 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:35 PM Mauro Carvalho Chehab <
mchehab+samsung@kernel.org> wrote:

> Em Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:21:42 -0700
> Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:06 PM jonsmirl@gmail.com <jonsmirl@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:32 PM Laurent Pinchart
> > > <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Jon,
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, 4 October 2018 19:23:33 EEST jonsmirl@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > > > > I would highly recommend getting the new CoC reviewed and approved
> by
> > > > > some of the very smart lawyers that help out the Linux community.
> I
> > > > > would also recommend discussing the Brendan Eich situation at
> Ksummit.
> > > > > A situation like this needs to be planned for since an improper
> > > > > response will make things much worse leading to legal challenges.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some random articles to refresh everyone's memory...
> > > > >
> > >
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/
>
> > > > >
> > >
> digital-media/10743456/Mozilla-chief-Brendan-Eich-steps-down-over-gay-marria
>
> > > > > ge-row.html
> > > > >
> > >
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/07/brendan-eich-has-the-
> >
> > > right-to-fight-gay-rights-but-not-to-be-mozillas-ceo
> > > > > https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26868536
> > > > >
> > >
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/technology-topics/10745283/Brendan-Ei
>
> > > > >
> > >
> ch-is-a-homophobe-Im-a-lesbian-and-neither-of-us-deserves-to-lose-our-jobs.h
>
> > > > > tml
> > > >
> > > > We're facing a textbook case that has a probability of generating
> heated
> > > > discussions no lower than 100%. I remember having a pretty strong
> > > opinion on
> > > > the topic when it came under public scrutiny (and while I generally
> > > don't mind
> > > > discussing it, I won't disclose that opinion here as that's entirely
> > > > irrelevant). The more interesting part was that waiting for the
> debate
> > > to cool
> > > > down gave me time to think, and realize that what is often perceived
> as a
> > > > black-and-white situation most often turns out to be more complex
> than
> > > > initially perceived.
> > > >
> > > > One point that I would like to explore is thus how we can take the
> time
> > > needed
> > > > to solve such matters when the mob is waiting outside of the
> courtroom
> > > with
> > > > tar and feathers. I don't want to discuss here what our response to
> such
> > > a
> > > > case should be, but the process that we should follow to come up
> with a
> > > > response. It is of paramount importance in my opinion for the body
> > > tasked with
> > > > handling those issues to follow a process that ensures it will be
> able
> > > to keep
> > > > a cool head and have enough time available to think the response
> > > carefully.
> > >
> > > What is going to happen when someone gets fired after being accused of
> > > violating the CoC and they lose $20M in options? INAL but it appears
> > > to me that the CoC has created lawsuit exposure for all of the
> > > maintainers. This CoC really needs to be vetted by the kernel legal
> > > team.
> > >
> >
> > you mean If someone gets fired for violating respect to the other human
> > being in public?!
> > I'm afraid this already happen around the world. And I never saw anyone
> > blaming news or social networks for that. The cause of this consequence
> is
> > on the speech itself, not on the channels....
>
> No, that's not what's written at the letter of the CoC. It is written
> there that:
>
> If developer A violates the CoC insulting developer B, the maintainer C is
> responsible to take actions against developer B.
>
> If maintainer C doesn't take actions[1], developer B can complain to
> TAB against maintainer C (and not against developer A).
>
> In other words, at the light of this CoC, the one that should be held
> into account is not the one that lacked respect. It is someone else
> that was unable to "educate" developer A.
>
> [1] It should be notice that, even the best good will maintainer
> won't be able to enforce the CoC, as several actions are impossible to
> handle for an e-mail-based workflow: maintainer B can't edit or
> remove all copies of an email that developer A posted on a public
> mailing list and their mirrors. Even his capability of banning developer A
> is limited, as he usually doesn't maintain the e-mail server. So, he has
> to ask someone else to do that.
>

Thanks for explaining like this. Maybe now I understand why some people
are freaking out about it.

But in my simplified example just add the Maintainer as conniving.

So, a company would fire maintainer for being conniving with an harassment
or any other unacceptable behavior, right?!

So, Developer A shouts racists words, maintainer C doesn't C the email.
Developer B complains to the TAB against Developer A and Maintainer C.

Should TAB ban permanently Maintainer C? I think temporarily is an option
really
clear there. But I assume TAB will listen to all sides and see all archive
before
taking any harsh decision like this.

I think the permanent ban would be just on cases when things are repeating
and when maintainer was clearly conniving with the action.

Ok, maybe this COC should be expanding to add TABs recommendation and leave
it
more crispy and clear.

However all I'm currently seeing on the patches that are floating lately
are using little unlikely corner cases to justify to remove critical parts
of the code of conduct such as the highlight that racism is unacceptable.

Thanks,
Rodrigo.


>
> Thanks,
> Mauro
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8053 bytes --]