Nils Lohner writes ("Patents"):
> I'm sure most people by now have had a chance to read the article by Bruce
> regarding software patents... one of the concepts he brings up is an
> organization to work for the community in helping with patent related
> issues. SPI is mentioned as one of the po
I think we need to be clear what the purpose of the membership is,
from the point of view of the organisation. From my point of view,
that purpose is control and accountability. That is:
The membership should/will control SPI, and SPI's board and ultimately
everyone that acts for SPI will be hel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Nils Lohner writes ("Resolution 1999-08-03.nl.2: Appointment of DPL as Advisor
to the BOD"):
> RECOGNIZING that the Debian Project plays a large and active role in the
> Free Software community, and
>
> NOTING that comments and criticism from large Free Softwa
I would like to point out some things that some people (Josh perhaps
included) aren't clear on:
* Most of the money and other assets that SPI legally owns are held
in trust for the corresponding Associated Projects. See the
Framework for Associated Projects [1]. The terms of the trust are
Neil McGovern writes ("SPI Board Meeting Reminder: 17th October, 2006"):
> MEETING REMINDER
I see on the agenda the following items
# OFTC election results
# Results of email resolutions
# GPG keys for machine access - request of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which do not appear to have been accompanied by
ng this mail:
pub 1024R/23F5ADDB 1993-01-17
Key fingerprint = 59 06 F6 87 BD 03 AC AD 0D 8E 60 2E FC F3 76 57
uid Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian.
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Josh Berkus writes ("Re: SPI and the case of dissolution"):
> I don't think that case was anticipated, at least I can't find it in
> the bylaws. Maybe someone who's been here from the beginning (Ian?
> Joey?) could enlighten me. In my experience, when NPOs fall apart
> there is plenty of warning
MJ Ray writes ("Re: no SPI meeting remainder ?"):
> I notice that there was another proposal to transfer opensource.org to
> OSI before they become accountable to free software developers. Is
> that why there was no announcement?
?! There's no conspiracy, just an oversight.
If you're opposed to
MJ Ray writes ("Re: no SPI meeting remainder ?"):
> Michael Schultheiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The spi-announce list was configured to discard posts from
> > non-subscribed addresses. I've updated the list config so Neil's posts
> > to spi-announce aren't discarded in the future.
>
> I'm
Neil McGovern writes ("Publically viewable resolutions and increasing the
visibility of board activity"):
> This is a short summary on how resolutions will be accepted by the
> secretary, and various ways in which to improve the membership
> participation in SPI and the board accountabilit
No-one seemse to have commented on this, so:
Draft resolution 2007-01-16.iwj.1. This is pursuant to MJ Ray's
"membership communication" item and should probably be treated as a
proposed amendment to that part of MJ Ray's proposal:
1. SPI board members would like to be fully prepared and briefed
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Publically viewable resolutions and increasing the
visibility of board activity"):
> Perhaps a better way would be : must be seconded (I don't know the next
> term) and thirded ;0 by a board member?
>
> A vote of the board can be difficult to achieve on short notice
Thinking about reports from officers, etc., leads me to suggest the
following addition to my proposal:
T-7 days: Latest non-emergency agenda item submission deadline,
to be submitted in accordance with other instructions
from the Secretary.
MJ Ray writes ("Re: Publically viewable resolutions and increasing the
visibility of board activity"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > by T-5 days: Meeting reminder announcement, sent by email,
> > containing complete li
MJ Ray writes ("Re: Publically viewable resolutions and increasing the
visibility of board activity"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > by T-5 days: Meeting reminder announcement, sent by email,
> > containing complete li
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: ASL/SPI partnership"):
> The money should be on Debian's books, not SPI's. ASL retain direct
> responsibility for its correct handling, not SPI, which is why it
> shouldn't be in SPI's books.
You mean, surely, that it should be on ASL's books. Debian doesn't
have any bo
MJ Ray writes ("SPI's respect for debian resolutions, was: [GR] DD should be
allowed to perform binary-only uploads"):
> Given that SPI has a policy of not interfering in project decision-making,
> would the board please confirm at its forthcoming meeting that: SPI's
> current understanding is t
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Resolution 2007-02-15.jrk.1: Openness of Board
Discussions"):
> I propose the below resolution for a board vote at the March meeting,
> since I have been told by the secretary that it is too late for a vote
> at the February meeting. I apologize for its verboseness, but al
2007-02-28.iwj.1
Formally recording Debian's status as an Associated Project
WHEREAS
1. Debian is asubstantial and significant Free Software project;
2. SPI and Debian regard Debian as an SPI Associated Project; however
3. The detailed terms of the Association have not been formally
stated
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
Project status"):
> I'd personally replace the rest with something like:
>
> 5. Debian may name an advisor to the board, who will have access to
> the board private discussion, but (unless that person is already a
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
Project status"):
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 07:17:33PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I'm afraid that this fails to clarify precisely the situation that was
> > being disputed. What if
Theodore Tso writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
Project status"):
> The general way you deal with this is you have a separation of
> responsibilities. So you have one person from the team which is
> designated as the official represenative, and another person who can
>
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
Project status"):
> Does the Debian constitution have a limits on what his authority
> represents?
Yes. For example:
- The DPL is not empowered to make technical decisions
- The DPL is not empowered to unilaterally
Josh Berkus writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
Project status"):
> Any resolution I support will:
> a) explicitly spell out the authority of the DPL
You would like the Debian constitution incorporated bodily into the
resolution ? Because that's the accurate description
I'm astonished at the pushback I'm having on the question of the
extent of the DPL's authority, and what SPI's position should be.
The situation is clear and there is absolutely no choice for SPI in
this matter. SPI _must_ honour the Debian Constitution, even in
case(s) where individual(s) (even
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
Project status"):
> Replace paragraphs 3 through 5 of the non-whereas portion of Ian's
> resolution with the following:
I think this is going in a reasonable direction but I still have a
slight problem with it, which is
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
Project status"):
> My wording was specifically intended to resolve those conflicts between
> the two recognized Debian contacts to SPI for which the default
> resolution (i.e., Secretary wins) would be unfair. I'd prefe
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
Project status"):
> 5. The Board relies on Debian Developers and others to ensure that the
> Board is made aware of any situations where there is disagreement among
> Debian Developers on the identity of the Debian Proje
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
Project status"):
> I have to pick a level of risk to worry about, and I'm much less worried
> about the risk of people inventing disagreements about the DPL's
> identity for sake of DoSing the board than I am about the
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
Project status"):
> 5. The Board relies on Debian Developers and others to ensure that the
> Board is made aware of Debian decisions relevant to SPI that are not
> communicated to the Board in a timely manner by the Debi
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
Project status"):
> Let Debian deal with it, and report (via the Liaison) to SPI the motion
> etc... If the Secretary drags his/her feet, then the DDs can form a
> quorum to recall her yes?
It is exactly this attitude
Neil McGovern writes ("Final SPI Board Meeting Reminder: Friday, March 16,
2007"):
> At time of writing, three motions have been raised, and there is one set
> of minutes to approve.
...
> 5. Secretary's report (Neil McGovern)
Last month we approved 2007-01-16.iwj.1 where you were requested to
in
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
Project status"):
> Well I certainly don't think we should rely on non position holding
> members (the information is great, thank you but we need an
> authoritative point).
The authoritative point is _as defined in the
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
Project status"):
> Well again, not so much opposed to the idea of them giving us
> information as much as us actually acting on it.
>
> 15 DDs stood in a room and cried foul.
> What does that mean?
`Cried foul' is the
Neil McGovern writes ("SPI Board Meeting Reminder: Friday, April 20th,
19:00UTC"):
> Apologies for the delay in sending this out. I've now set various
> reminders so that it shouldn't be late again.
Thanks.
> MEETING REMINDER
>
>
> The Board of Directors of Software in the Publ
Note forum-shifting, of which more discussion later in this mail.
Joshua D. Drake writes on board@ ("Re: SPI support for [some project]"):
> You are correct, and I find it a very, very sad prospect that we are
> only able to [act as trustees for funds] this when our charter
> clearly states we sho
--- Begin Message ---
This resolution, adapted from Ian Jackson's resolution inviting OpenVAS
to become an SPI project, is to be voted on at today's meeting.
(Shamelessly cribbed from Jimmy Kaplowitz's PostgreSQL motion.)
--- begin text of resolution 2005-12-13.iwj.1 ---
WHEREAS
1. OpenVAS is a
WHEREAS
1. OpenVAS is a significant Free Software project. (OpenVAS is the
Open Source fork of Nessus.)
2. The OpenVAS developers would like SPI's support and assistance,
including DNS hosting and registration and possibly other services
including taking donations, to be decided later b
--- Begin Message ---
This resolution, adapted from Ian Jackson's resolution inviting PostgreSQL
to become an SPI project, is to be voted on at today's meeting.
--- begin text of resolution 2005-12-13.jrk.1 ---
WHEREAS
1. PostgreSQL is a substantial and significant Free Software project.
2. The
WHEREAS
1. OpenVAS is a significant Free Software project. (OpenVAS is the
Open Source fork of Nessus.)
2. The OpenVAS developers would like SPI's support and assistance,
including DNS hosting and registration and possibly other services
including taking donations, to be decided later b
Neil McGovern writes ("Second Call for nominations - 2007 SPI Board Election"):
> How to nominate:
>
> Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nominations can be from the candidates, or
> a third party. If the nomination is not from the candidate, they will
> need to confirm their intent to stand
Neil McGovern writes ("Annual meeting reminder"):
> The Board of Directors of Software in the Public Interest, Inc., will
> hold it's annual meeting on Friday July 6th, 19:00UTC
Sorry I didn't make this; I was on a train at the time.
Ian.
___
Spi-genera
--- Begin Message ---
Quoting http://ossg.bcs.org/2007/07/24/:
The Open Source Specialist Group (OSSG) will be holding an interactive
event on Tuesday 24th July 2007 over a proposal to create a British
Computer Society (BCS) Open Source Licence.
Obviously this is a very bad idea. To make t
I thought I should write a more extended submission for my board
candidacy:
My views on SPI
---
I think SPI's chief role should continue to be accepting and spending
tax-free donations in the USA for use by Free Software projects. A
wider field of projects is a good thing but we sho
MJ Ray writes ("Re: [Spi-private] Re: Inviting questions from SPI"):
> Another reason is that SPI is controlled by developers and not users.
> Would you address that and how?
If I may answer a question addressed to another candidate:
I think it's correct that SPI is controlled by contributors to
Andrew Sullivan writes ("Re: Second Call for nominations - 2007 SPI Board
Election"):
> For what it's worth, I didn't interpret the comment that way, and I
> think it is in any case unhelpful at this point to start discussing
> what could or could not have happened in some other possible world.
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: Copyright issues re Debian website"):
> There's a 207 page report at
> http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report-full.pdf
This clearly describes the problem. I have read the Executive Summary
and it seems from reading it that Jimmy is right and you are wrong.
> But
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: Copyright issues re Debian website"):
> And it's entirely absurd that the other 999 producers of a collective
> work would be permanently impeded by this fact.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that there is some principle
that says that the law is not absurd.
Th
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: are we being honest about legal resources?"):
> It's pretty clear that there are now two camps that are not particularly
> interested in each other's project, which hasn't really been the case
> with SPI until recently.
This is complete nonsense. Just because everyone
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
> I don't understand why it is important. Why can the matters raised in
> AOB not be dealt with in an identical way informally or by email to
^^
I should expand on this
David Graham writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
> We've been down this road, we've had this argument. AOB is important for
> the function of the board and banning it is an utterly useless and
> counter-productive artificial barrier.
I don't understand why it is important. Why can the ma
David Graham writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Please don't permit AOB at meetings.
>
> We've been down this road, we've had this argument.
Oh, and: we had this argument and you lost the vote. Resolution
2007-01-16.iwj.5 was the result. It was a
David Graham writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
> The resolution you reference is:
> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2007-01-16-iwj.5.html
>
> Which does not preclude AOB, specifically exempting emergency business
> without qualifying it.
It does preclude AOB of non-emergenc
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
> We have been doing AOB at meetings since at least my 3rd meeting. I
> specifically requested it in fact. It makes things a lot easier on
> everyone when something simple needs to be pointed out for the record
> but doesn't need a lot o
s thinking something along these lines:
DRAFT COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Gnomovision - a program to reveal invisible gnomes
Copyright (C) 2007 Ian Jackson
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of version 3 of the GNU General Public
MJ Ray writes ("Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> [item 7.1, Resolution 2008.12.17.bg.1 - Privoxy as associated project]
>
> luk_: I think the three folks listed in the resolution are the
> three primary commiters. privoxy.org is the web site for the project,
> I believe.
I'm terribly sorry to kee
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:13 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > For other kinds of resolutions there are of course other isomorphic
> > problems. That is why THE MEMBERSHIP MUST BE GIVEN THE CHANCE TO
> > COMME
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 13:50 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > > > [Ian Jackson:]
> > > > > > For other kinds of resolutions there are of course other isomorphic
> > > > > >
MJ Ray writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> Just to refresh members' memory, the email about Privoxy to
> spi-private dated Fri Aug 15 22:04:19 UTC 2008 proposed:-
>
> The first liason would be [Fabian Keil]. The liason can be changed
>by any of the Project Admins as listed on the SF p
DRAFT RESOLUTION 2008-12-19.iwj.1
WHEREAS
1. The Board and Secretary have found it difficult to provide the
level of openness and consultation set out in 2007-01-16.iwj.1.
THEREFORE
2. The Board reaffirms `Whereas' paragraphs 1-4 of 2007-01-16.iwj.1.
3. The Board reaffirms `Resolved that' p
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > (b) you agree with me that there should be more transparency
> > and feel that in future a different process with greater
> > trans
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> Please reread the announcement. It explicitly mentioned that there was a
> possibility of one or two associated project resolutions being brought up,
> where the associated projects in question had been discussed with the
> contributing m
Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) writes:
> > Excellent. Can you explain why it wasn't followed in this case ?
>
> Because I violated it. I apparently dropped the ball on getting the
> fi
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> I'm afraid that simply isn't good enough. The question should have
> been deferred as a matter of course. You shouldn't have suggested
> going ahead with it anyway, and the rest of the board should not ha
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> This all needs to change.
Since we're all geeks perhaps we should try to address a social
problem with a technical solution.
If I went and wrote a webform/emailscanning robot which enforced these
rules and automaticall
Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> That's a really interesting idea. On general principles, I would use such
> a thing. Are you up for drafting some sort of specification the current
> board and officers could review to see if it's something we agree would be
> an improveme
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Member communications II"):
> On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 09:24 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > DRAFT RESOLUTION 2008-12-19.iwj.1
...
> With all due respect this seems like a motion for the sake of having a
> motion.
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Member communications II"):
> What is the problem we are trying to solve?
> The board's continual failures in communication and following protocol.
Right.
> How does this motion address the problem any more than the other motions
> that have already been passed?
It m
Joerg Jaspert writes ("Re: Meeting agenda robot"):
> Perl, Python or Ruby should all be ok. No Java please.
Yes. I started with Perl but I had too bad a cold and couldn't
comprehend simple manpages. I'll try again when I'm feeling better
:-).
> > Do we already have an https server and user mana
Joerg Jaspert writes ("Meeting agenda bot, website, git, ssh"):
> we now have a git service up and running, in which we can put the data
> for our new website and also the to-be-written Meeting agenda bot.
>
> A webview is behind http://git.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi and that
> also shows you
Joerg Jaspert writes ("Re: Meeting agenda bot, website, git, ssh"):
> [Ian Jackson:]
> > Is there one single access control setup for the whole thing, or are
> > there several ? It would be nice to be able to let people edit the
> > website without giving them the
Joerg Jaspert writes ("Re: Meeting agenda bot, website, git, ssh"):
> [Ian:]
> > If the code for something running on the server is kept in git then
> > effectively everyone who can write to the git can run code on the
> > server, because even if pushing to the running copy is manual no-one
> > wil
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated
project"):
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 02:33:35PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > How does decision-making work? If one says yes, and one says no, what
> > happens? This requires clarification.
>
> Decisions are made ac
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated
project [revised]"):
> 6. This invitation will lapse 60 days after it is approved by the SPI Board
> unless each liaison, within that time, has accepted it on behalf of
> OpenWRT, agreed with the other
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated
project [revised]"):
> I thought other people were explicitly saying they didn't want SPI
> to have to monitor internal OpenWRT operations, and that they
> considered the arrangement with Debian to be a mistake
Josh Berkus writes;
> Actually, that's not what I'm personally worried about. What I'm
> worried about is:
These are the right questions, I think. Given what I'm about to say
I've changed the names to Alice and Bob of the FreePLNK project, to
make it clearly hypothetical.
> -- If Alice says "P
Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated
project [revised]"):
> For example, if a liason is acting contrary to the wishes of a
> project, and the project reports that this is the case to SPI and
> removes the liason, but the liason reports that it is not the
jyqvkl...@googlemail.com writes ("Organisation for enforcement of GPL3
licensing"):
> I wish to find or start a project which is capable and willing of
> enforcing the GPL3 licensing terms of of individual software
> developers and documenters (hereafter "contributors") who otherwise
> have no inc
Um, I forgot to change some of my threes to fours, in my example:
If we imagine a polarised election, where there are four candidates on
one side A B C D and four candidates on the other side W X Y Z, and
four seats, and every ballot is either an ABCD-ballot (ranks every
ABCD above every WXYZ)
Sorry, but I think we need to think again about our voting system for
the board elections. Condorcet is great for a single-winner election.
However AFAICT the current system for the multi-winner board elections
has a very undesirable majority-takes-all property.
I couldn't find a formal descripti
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV"):
> Having studied this a bit, I would suggest that the best currently
> available multiwinner election system for our purposes here, i.e., for
> proportional representation, is Reweighted Range Voting, see
> http://www.rangevoting
Markus Schulze writes ("Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV"):
> in my opinion, the Schulze STV method is
> the best multi-winner election method:
Thanks for pointing us to that. Interesting reading.
I wouldn't support such a thing for a public governmental election,
because of the need for compu
(I have changed the subject line because this thread is no longer
about the SPI elections, but about voting in general.)
Alvaro Herrera writes ("Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I wouldn't support such a thing for a public governmental elec
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV"):
> Regarding the use of Schulze STV for SPI elections, interesting
> idea indeed and the Secretary may wish to consider it.
Ideally the membership would make this decision as a change to the
bylaws but our constitutional situation is s
Many of SPI's Associated Projects hold conferences or other kinds of
real-world meetups, often with SPI assistance.
Recently I've been very disturbed to see that some FLOSS conference
organisers apparently don't think it's their business to see that
attendees to their events aren't sexually assaul
Many of SPI's Associated Projects hold conferences or other kinds of
real-world meetups, often with SPI assistance.
Recently I've been very disturbed to see that some FLOSS conference
organisers apparently don't think it's their business to see that
attendees to their events aren't sexually assaul
Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> Public denouncing of non-convicted people is a violation of Human
> Rights.
Nonsense.
> I'd expect a code of conduct to also disallow publically accusing other
> people of crimes.
Ridiculous.
Ian.
Thijs Kinkhorst writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> Writing into a code which is already not allowed and for which exists an
> entire system of enforcement professionals and fact finding procedures,
> seems superfluous at best.
It seems that you may be unfamiliar with the context surroundi
David Graham writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> 1. The catch-22: Codes of conduct for attendees will only be followed by
> people who would behave appropriately anyway. If such people behaved the
> whole world industry known as 'law enforcement' and the court system would
> be completel
Wichert Akkerman writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> On 11/10/10 16:11 , John Goerzen wrote:
> > The law various from country to country, as does the effectiveness of
> > its enforcement. Do we find it acceptable to permit this sort of
> > behavior when conferences are held in countries tha
John Goerzen writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> I'm still not sure that a "code of conduct" is really the right thing.
I'm not attached to the "Code of Conduct" phrase. Another way to put
it would be "Policy on Behaviour at the Conference".
But I think it is very valuable that there is
MJ Ray writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> I think a code of conduct is a good idea, but I'm not sure if there's
> too much emphasis on one particular type of misbehaviour for free and
> open source software projects.
What are the other kinds of misbehaviour that you're thinking of ?
> I
Martin Wuertele writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> Ian Jackson [2010-11-10 12:32]:
> > Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> > > Public denouncing of non-convicted people is a violation of Human
> > > Rights.
>
Bill Allombert writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> What happened was the opposite: two developpers manhandled a third
> one. The third one get expelled from Debconf. The two did not get
> real sanction beyond being sermoned. But of course the public memory
> of the event is different.
Tha
Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> 2. Formally defining what is correct and what is not is hard.
We don't need a complete list of everything which is acceptable or
unacceptable. It suffices to mention the things which cause trouble.
> People from many different cultures meet
David Graham writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events [and 1 more messages]"):
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > A written policy does a number of things:
>
> For a guy who comes from a stable western democracy without a written
> constitution you place
Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events [and 1 more messages]"):
> Woman accuses man of sexual assault or rape.
> Man denies it or says it was consensual.
> No witnesses.
>
> You cannot set any clear guidelines for figuring out in this case which
> person is the offender and which pers
Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events [and 1 more messages]"):
> Additionally, I am uncertain that a code would have helped mitigate
> this situation. I refuse to believe that the alleged behavior is
> considered acceptable in any extant culture. [Even though I fear it
> may be commo
Wichert Akkerman writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events [and 1 more messages]"):
> So hypothetical situation: suppose there is a group of people who do
> brilliant open source work and would like to become a SPI project. But
> they happen to come from a culture with acceptable behaviour that you
Bernhard R. Link writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> * Ian Jackson [10 14:35]:
> > Martin Wuertele writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> > > Ian Jackson [2010-11-10 12:32]:
> > > > Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Code of
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
