On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 2:47 PM Trond Myklebust <tron...@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.mykleb...@hammerspace.com > > -- Jon Smirl jonsm...@gmail.com
