All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Tim.Bird@sony.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 16:37:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181008163748.0e68cba5@alans-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1538883209.4088.14.camel@HansenPartnership.com>

 
> I happen to think that the fact that the TAB cannot compel where it
> cannot persuade is a huge strength of the system because it means
> there's no power structure to subvert if someone were interested in
> using it to try to impose their own viewpoint on the community.  But
> that's just my opinion and I did write the TAB charter, so I'm probably
> biased in this viewpoint.

The TAB can't handle it anyway because the privacy promise about
reporting is incompatible with reality for three reasons (and I bet there
are more)

1. Things like the EUCD can force almost all but the name to be revealed
to the person complained about as the tab has no legal privilege.
2. There are lots of laws in lots of locations where some allegations
*MUST* be reported to law enforcement.
3. We know from things like the catholic church debacle that serious
allegations need to be fast-pathed to the legal system - yet the privacy
promises are incompatible with that.

It ever got really nasty then the scenario that unfolds is potentially
the following

Developer A makes a complaint about developer B
Developer B's employer fires developer B

Developer B then uses things like the EUCD to force the TAB to provide
the complaint details (with personal data redacted) and the TAB has no
real defence as it's not legally privileged. 

Developer B then sues developer A, the TAB for all sorts of things, the
LF and their employer.

In court what's going to happen to the TAB ?

= Where is your written policy ?
= Who approved it and reviewed it for legal compliance ?
= What are your qualifications in this area ?
= Where are the full minutes of the decision ?
= Which of you work for rival companies ?
= What personal connections do or your frends have to A and B ?

Needless to say answers like 'we don't have one, nobody, none, umm I think
there's an email thread' are not going to go down well.

This sort of mess works with big company HR departments because they've
got lawyers and they have lots of written process. If it hits a court
then B's employer is able to point at all their rules and policies,
employment contracts etc. All of the decisions were either legally
privileged or minuted properly. The people who made the decisions have
appropriate professional qualifications.

The TAB can't enforce anything. If maintainers decide to carry on
accepting patches from someone what can they do ?

So both patches:

Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@llwyncelyn.cymru>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Tim.Bird@sony.com, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 16:37:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181008163748.0e68cba5@alans-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1538883209.4088.14.camel@HansenPartnership.com>

 
> I happen to think that the fact that the TAB cannot compel where it
> cannot persuade is a huge strength of the system because it means
> there's no power structure to subvert if someone were interested in
> using it to try to impose their own viewpoint on the community.  But
> that's just my opinion and I did write the TAB charter, so I'm probably
> biased in this viewpoint.

The TAB can't handle it anyway because the privacy promise about
reporting is incompatible with reality for three reasons (and I bet there
are more)

1. Things like the EUCD can force almost all but the name to be revealed
to the person complained about as the tab has no legal privilege.
2. There are lots of laws in lots of locations where some allegations
*MUST* be reported to law enforcement.
3. We know from things like the catholic church debacle that serious
allegations need to be fast-pathed to the legal system - yet the privacy
promises are incompatible with that.

It ever got really nasty then the scenario that unfolds is potentially
the following

Developer A makes a complaint about developer B
Developer B's employer fires developer B

Developer B then uses things like the EUCD to force the TAB to provide
the complaint details (with personal data redacted) and the TAB has no
real defence as it's not legally privileged. 

Developer B then sues developer A, the TAB for all sorts of things, the
LF and their employer.

In court what's going to happen to the TAB ?

= Where is your written policy ?
= Who approved it and reviewed it for legal compliance ?
= What are your qualifications in this area ?
= Where are the full minutes of the decision ?
= Which of you work for rival companies ?
= What personal connections do or your frends have to A and B ?

Needless to say answers like 'we don't have one, nobody, none, umm I think
there's an email thread' are not going to go down well.

This sort of mess works with big company HR departments because they've
got lawyers and they have lots of written process. If it hits a court
then B's employer is able to point at all their rules and policies,
employment contracts etc. All of the decisions were either legally
privileged or minuted properly. The people who made the decisions have
appropriate professional qualifications.

The TAB can't enforce anything. If maintainers decide to carry on
accepting patches from someone what can they do ?

So both patches:

Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@llwyncelyn.cymru>



  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-10-08 15:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 93+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-06 21:35 [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes James Bottomley
2018-10-06 21:35 ` James Bottomley
2018-10-06 21:36 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses James Bottomley
2018-10-06 21:36   ` James Bottomley
2018-10-07  8:25   ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-10-07  8:25     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-10-07 15:25     ` Shuah Khan
2018-10-07 15:25       ` Shuah Khan
2018-10-07  9:04   ` Daniel Vetter
2018-10-07  9:04     ` Daniel Vetter
2018-10-07  9:54     ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-10-07 15:29     ` James Bottomley
2018-10-08 19:49       ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-08 19:49         ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-07 17:53   ` Guenter Roeck
2018-10-07 22:25   ` Dave Airlie
2018-10-07 22:25     ` Dave Airlie
2018-10-07 22:56     ` Al Viro
2018-10-07 23:02       ` Al Viro
2018-10-07 23:37       ` Dave Airlie
2018-10-08 10:14         ` Mark Brown
2018-10-08 10:14           ` Mark Brown
2018-10-08 19:32         ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-08 19:32           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-08 17:05       ` Luck, Tony
2018-10-08 17:05         ` Luck, Tony
2018-10-08 14:08     ` James Bottomley
2018-10-10 16:36     ` Pavel Machek
2018-10-10 16:36       ` Pavel Machek
2018-10-08 15:20   ` Josh Triplett
2018-10-08 15:20     ` Josh Triplett
2018-10-08 15:30     ` James Bottomley
2018-10-08 19:23       ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-08 19:23         ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-08 19:57         ` Josh Triplett
2018-10-09 10:55           ` Mark Brown
2018-10-09 18:29     ` Rainer Fiebig
2018-10-09 18:56       ` Josh Triplett
2018-10-09 19:38         ` Laurent Pinchart
2018-10-09 19:38           ` Laurent Pinchart
2018-10-09 19:44           ` James Bottomley
2018-10-10  7:22             ` Rainer Fiebig
2018-10-10  5:52           ` Rainer Fiebig
2018-10-10  7:08         ` Rainer Fiebig
2018-10-08 19:24   ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-08 19:24     ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-10 20:48   ` Frank Rowand
2018-10-06 21:37 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion James Bottomley
2018-10-06 21:37   ` James Bottomley
2018-10-06 21:43   ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Tim.Bird
2018-10-06 21:43     ` Tim.Bird
2018-10-07  3:33     ` James Bottomley
2018-10-08 13:51       ` Tim.Bird
2018-10-08 13:51         ` Tim.Bird
2018-10-08 14:09         ` James Bottomley
2018-10-08 17:58           ` Tim.Bird
2018-10-08 17:58             ` Tim.Bird
2018-10-08 18:11             ` James Bottomley
2018-10-08 18:54               ` Tim.Bird
2018-10-08 18:54                 ` Tim.Bird
2018-10-08 15:03         ` jonsmirl
2018-10-08 15:03           ` jonsmirl
2018-10-08 15:37       ` Alan Cox [this message]
2018-10-08 15:37         ` Alan Cox
2018-10-11  7:42         ` Dan Carpenter
2018-10-07 15:32   ` Shuah Khan
2018-10-07 15:32     ` Shuah Khan
2018-10-07 17:56   ` Guenter Roeck
2018-10-07 19:51   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-10-07 19:51     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-10-08 18:15   ` Chris Mason
2018-10-08 18:15     ` Chris Mason
2018-10-08 19:04     ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Josh Triplett
2018-10-08 20:23   ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-08 20:23     ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-10 15:53     ` Alan Cox
2018-10-10 15:53       ` Alan Cox
2018-10-10 17:19       ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-10 17:19         ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-10 20:09         ` Alan Cox
2018-10-10 20:09           ` Alan Cox
2018-10-10 20:30           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-10 20:30             ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-10 20:32           ` Dave Airlie
2018-10-07 17:11 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes Daniel Vetter
2018-10-07 17:11   ` Daniel Vetter
2018-10-07 17:40   ` James Bottomley
2018-10-07 17:50     ` jonsmirl
2018-10-07 17:50       ` jonsmirl
2018-10-07 17:52     ` Daniel Vetter
2018-10-10 16:12     ` Pavel Machek
2018-10-10 16:12       ` Pavel Machek
2018-10-10 16:25       ` Randy Dunlap

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20181008163748.0e68cba5@alans-desktop \
    --to=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
    --cc=Tim.Bird@sony.com \
    --cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.