From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAB9DACA for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 19:14:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf1-f194.google.com (mail-pf1-f194.google.com [209.85.210.194]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA34E713 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 19:14:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-f194.google.com with SMTP id l81-v6so17988650pfg.3 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:14:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com> <20181020135118.GG32218@kroah.com> <20181020192845.48b8b860@alans-desktop> In-Reply-To: From: "jonsmirl@gmail.com" Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 15:14:20 -0400 Message-ID: To: trondmy@hammerspace.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: mishi@linux.com, gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, lkml , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Greg KH Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 2:47 PM Trond Myklebust 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