On Thu, 2018-07-19 at 11:21 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > [I'm replying as someone who helped to draft the CoC, and who was on > the board when it was approved. The CoC committee is responsible for > applying the code, and we have a new board now.] > > Benjamin Berg <benja...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > ... > > The Code of Conduct Committee charter[1] explicitly grants committee > > members the following rights for any "GNOME event": > > > > * Issuing warnings > > * Banning individuals from events > > * Halting or cancelling talks > > * Removing individual privileges and responsibilities > > > > In how far are these rights applicable to Hackfests? > > The board voted in favour of this charter, as written. "GNOME events" > include hackfests. However, in practical terms, it isn't envisaged > that members of the CoC committee will be at hackfests. If the > committee receives a report, it is probably only going to be able to > respond after the event has ended, so I'm not sure how many of these > powers would apply.
I agree that this is more of a theoretical question rather than something that is likely to happen soon. However, I don't think your response clearly answers my question. And I do think it is important to understand possible implications of Board decisions as they may directly affect community members who organise events. My current understanding of your response is, that the CoC committee holds the all of the above powers for all "GNOME events" (unless maybe an explicit exception has been made). Is that interpretation correct? > > The response guidelines[2] state: > > > > "It is your responsibility to make a record of any Code of Conduct > > violations you become aware of, and to share those records with the > > Code of Conduct Committee." > > > > Is this a requirement for hackfest organisers? > > The incident response guidelines are guidelines, rather than a hard > set of rules. They were primarily written with the Code of Conduct > committee and code of conduct teams in mind. So formally speaking, I > wouldn't say that the guideline you've quoted is a requirement. That sounds reasonable in principle. Does these mean that "Section V: Data retention" is purely a suggestion that events should adopt? As I understand it right now, the consequence would be that all "GNOME events" are free to adopt a data retention policy of their choosing. > That said, my view is that, if a hackfest organiser is aware of a > serious incident at their event, they ought to inform the Code of > Conduct Committee. There have been discussions in the past that this may trigger data protection and export regulations. Is there an official opinion on whether such regulations are relevant, and, if yes, whether small events may be expected to e.g. sign a contract with the Foundation to ensure such data exchange can happen legally. Benjamin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
