Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Benjamin Berg]

On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 16:28 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> Benjamin Berg  wrote:
> ...
> > I fully understand that there is an interest for old comments and bug
> > reports to remain available. I raised my concerns because it seemed
> > like we have currently exactly one person who is barred from editing
> > their Gitlab history, while everyone else can do so freely.
> 
> There might be other users who have been blocked from using their
> accounts, in response to bad behaviour...

Sure, there might be more and there certainly will be eventually. But
that does not affect the point I am making.

> > > In the future, I think it would be good to have a policy in place for
> > > situations like this.
> > 
> > Is there a ticket to track the creation of such a policy?
> 
> It might well fall under our privacy policy issue [1].

Yeah, it might be possible to address the issues raised in this thread
there.

I have added a note to the issue.

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

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Allan Day]

Benjamin Berg  wrote:
...
> I fully understand that there is an interest for old comments and bug
> reports to remain available. I raised my concerns because it seemed
> like we have currently exactly one person who is barred from editing
> their Gitlab history, while everyone else can do so freely.

There might be other users who have been blocked from using their
accounts, in response to bad behaviour...

> > In the future, I think it would be good to have a policy in place for
> > situations like this.
>
> Is there a ticket to track the creation of such a policy?

It might well fall under our privacy policy issue [1].

Allan
-- 
[1] https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Board/issues/25
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Benjamin Berg]

On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 11:10 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> Benjamin Berg  wrote:
> ...
> > I have neither gotten a response nor have I seen an indication that the
> > Board is discussing the issue. Is the Board planning on responding to
> > this request?
> 
> Reading back over the thread, it's not entirely clear what the issue
> is, so I'll just summarise what's happened:
> 
>  * A GitLab account was blocked due to inappropriate behaviour
>  * The user then sent the GitLab admin a request to remove the account
> along with all posted comments
>  * The Board decided to anonymise the comments rather than delete
> them, in order to preserve thread history
>  * When the admin went to delete the account, GitLab removed all the
> comments too, so anonymization wasn't possible
> 
> So we did fully comply with the request, albeit unintentionally.

Right, I seem to have missed the information that the comments were
deleted. I was under the impression that there is still activity from
the user available on Gitlab at this point. 

> In this case, losing the comments wasn't a major issue since they
> didn't have any value. However, if the user was a long-time
> contributor, the situation would of course be different.

I fully understand that there is an interest for old comments and bug
reports to remain available. I raised my concerns because it seemed
like we have currently exactly one person who is barred from editing
their Gitlab history, while everyone else can do so freely.

> In the future, I think it would be good to have a policy in place for
> situations like this.

Is there a ticket to track the creation of such a policy?

> Does that help to clarify?

Thanks for the reply, I do believe that this has clarified the matter a
lot.

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

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Allan Day]

Benjamin Berg  wrote:
...
> I have neither gotten a response nor have I seen an indication that the
> Board is discussing the issue. Is the Board planning on responding to
> this request?

Reading back over the thread, it's not entirely clear what the issue
is, so I'll just summarise what's happened:

 * A GitLab account was blocked due to inappropriate behaviour
 * The user then sent the GitLab admin a request to remove the account
along with all posted comments
 * The Board decided to anonymise the comments rather than delete
them, in order to preserve thread history
 * When the admin went to delete the account, GitLab removed all the
comments too, so anonymization wasn't possible

So we did fully comply with the request, albeit unintentionally.

In this case, losing the comments wasn't a major issue since they
didn't have any value. However, if the user was a long-time
contributor, the situation would of course be different.

In the future, I think it would be good to have a policy in place for
situations like this.

Does that help to clarify?

Allan
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Benjamin Berg]

Hi Board,

On Sat, 2018-05-26 at 01:57 +0200, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:41 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote:
> > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Carlos Soriano 
> > wrote:
> > > What is your goal exactly with this interrogatory?
> > 
> > I guess he’s just trying to get an answer to his initial question,
> > since you kept dodging it.
> 
> Yes, it was the exact same question just slightly reworded. Probably
> not great style my side, but I also found the way that an answer was
> avoided rather off-putting.
> 
> Now, back to the issue at hand. The user seems to have requested the
> complete deletion of the account *including* all activity. AFAICT this
> means that it is in the best interest of this user to delete everything
> to the extend possible.
> 
> It is also a fact, that the user could remove many of the strings that
> they posted on Gitlab by replacing them with e.g. "deleted" if their
> account was still usable. The sole reason they cannot do so is because
> their account was first blocked and later deleted.
> 
> Now, it appears that the fact that Gitlab allows users to edit their
> comments was missed during the discussion by the Board. As such, the
> Boards decision may need to be revisited under consideration of these
> new facts.
> 
> Could the Board please clarify whether the concerns raised here affect
> the official decision?

I have neither gotten a response nor have I seen an indication that the
Board is discussing the issue. Is the Board planning on responding to
this request?

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

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Jens Georg]

> I don't know what these "comments" contribute to later understanding
> of the development decisions.  If hardly any, then there is no reason
> to object to deleting them.  If they are important, then we should
> fight deleting them.  Perhaps it is worth consulting a US lawyer
> about whether GNOME has to fear a Canadian censorship law.

Or an european lawyer whether or not having an option to delete user-
generated content is necessary for fulfilling the GDPR (on the line of
Art. 17)
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > There is a good reason not to allow this: it would be sabotague of 
  > project history. In a small case, it might be harmless, but if it's a 
  > core developer, imagine the potential damage to GNOME if hundreds or 
  > thousands of comments were to disappear from bug reports.

I don't know what these "comments" contribute to later understanding
of the development decisions.  If hardly any, then there is no reason
to object to deleting them.  If they are important, then we should
fight deleting them.  Perhaps it is worth consulting a US lawyer
about whether GNOME has to fear a Canadian censorship law.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[mcatanzaro]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Benjamin Berg 
 wrote:

Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not make
this offer in the future and in this case?

Benjamin


There is a good reason not to allow this: it would be sabotague of 
project history. In a small case, it might be harmless, but if it's a 
core developer, imagine the potential damage to GNOME if hundreds or 
thousands of comments were to disappear from bug reports.


I hope GitLab has a time limit as to how far back posts can be edited, 
to prevent this.


Michael

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Alexandre Franke]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Carlos Soriano  wrote:
> What is your goal exactly with this interrogatory?

I guess he’s just trying to get an answer to his initial question,
since you kept dodging it.

-- 
Alexandre Franke
GNOME Hacker & Foundation Director
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Carlos Soriano]

What is your goal exactly with this interrogatory?

In this case, the request was explicitly delete the account. The user sent
a screenshot of the admin interface with the button selected of "delete
account and activity" and didn't want anything else.

On 25 May 2018 at 21:30, Benjamin Berg  wrote:

> On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:29 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > Depends on the case I guess? If I have to go over 1000 comments
> > probably not. There could be other reasons, but I don't know yet
> > because I didn't manage many cases yet.
>
> And in this particular case?
>
> Benjamin
>
> > On 25 May 2018 at 21:24, Benjamin Berg 
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:20 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > > > Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this
> > > offer?
> > > >
> > > > No, apart of the policy mentioned in the minutes.
> > >
> > > Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not
> > > make
> > > this offer in the future and in this case?
> > >
> > > Benjamin
> > >
> > > > On 25 May 2018 at 21:18, Benjamin Berg  > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > > > > > Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because
> > > > > that
> > > > > > was not the request. The request was as described "account
> > > > > deletion
> > > > > > in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete
> > > > > deletion,
> > > > > > including any activity.
> > > > >
> > > > > This doesn't make any sense to me. The user has explicitly
> > > > > requested a
> > > > > full deletion including all comments. You have solely decided
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > comments would not be removed, but there was no decision on
> > > whether
> > > > > the
> > > > > comment text needs to stay as is.
> > > > >
> > > > > As such, I would expect that you explicitly offer the user to
> > > > > replace
> > > > > all text in relevant posts. Have you done so, if not, is there
> > > any
> > > > > reason to not make this offer?
> > > > >
> > > > > Benjamin
> > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg,  > > ions
> > > > > .net
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> > > > > > > >  * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked
> > > user
> > > > > > > (Carlos)
> > > > > > > >   * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of
> > > this
> > > > > > > >   * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked
> > > a
> > > > > user
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no
> > > > > longer
> > > > > > > log in
> > > > > > > > to edit/delete their comments.
> > > > > > > >   * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > posts
> > > > > > > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their
> > > > > legal
> > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action.
> > > > > > > >   * Comments can only be deleted by an admin.
> > > > > > > >   * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that
> > > are
> > > > > > > stored on
> > > > > > > > GNOME servers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to
> > > other
> > > > > > > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be
> > > > > > > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third
> > > > > parties in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the
> > > relevant
> > > > > > > text
> > > > > > > even if they cannot delete the comment itself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It sounds like the request for deletion was completely
> > > refused
> > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > than complying with it as much as possible by changing all
> > > text
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not
> > > complying
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > the request in this way?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data
> > > > > retention
> > > > > > > > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required
> > > for
> > > > > > > > insurance purposes.
> > > > > > > >   * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise
> > > > > posts
> > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo
> > > -
> > > > > isn't
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes.
> > > > > > > >   * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account
> > > > > rather
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is
> > > personally
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > favour
> > > > > > > > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are.
> > > > > > > >   * ACTION: 

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Benjamin Berg]

On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:29 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> Depends on the case I guess? If I have to go over 1000 comments
> probably not. There could be other reasons, but I don't know yet
> because I didn't manage many cases yet.

And in this particular case?

Benjamin

> On 25 May 2018 at 21:24, Benjamin Berg 
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:20 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > > Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this
> > offer?
> > > 
> > > No, apart of the policy mentioned in the minutes.
> > 
> > Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not
> > make
> > this offer in the future and in this case?
> > 
> > Benjamin
> > 
> > > On 25 May 2018 at 21:18, Benjamin Berg  > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > > > > Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because
> > > > that
> > > > > was not the request. The request was as described "account
> > > > deletion
> > > > > in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete
> > > > deletion,
> > > > > including any activity.
> > > > 
> > > > This doesn't make any sense to me. The user has explicitly
> > > > requested a
> > > > full deletion including all comments. You have solely decided
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > comments would not be removed, but there was no decision on
> > whether
> > > > the
> > > > comment text needs to stay as is.
> > > > 
> > > > As such, I would expect that you explicitly offer the user to
> > > > replace
> > > > all text in relevant posts. Have you done so, if not, is there
> > any
> > > > reason to not make this offer?
> > > > 
> > > > Benjamin
> > > > 
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg,  > ions
> > > > .net
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> > > > > > >  * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked
> > user
> > > > > > (Carlos)
> > > > > > >   * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of
> > this
> > > > > > >   * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked
> > a
> > > > user
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no
> > > > longer
> > > > > > log in
> > > > > > > to edit/delete their comments.
> > > > > > >   * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that
> > > > their
> > > > > > posts
> > > > > > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their
> > > > legal
> > > > > > right
> > > > > > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action.
> > > > > > >   * Comments can only be deleted by an admin.
> > > > > > >   * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that
> > are
> > > > > > stored on
> > > > > > > GNOME servers.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to
> > other
> > > > > > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be
> > > > > > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third
> > > > parties in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the
> > relevant
> > > > > > text
> > > > > > even if they cannot delete the comment itself.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It sounds like the request for deletion was completely
> > refused
> > > > > > rather
> > > > > > than complying with it as much as possible by changing all
> > text
> > > > to
> > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not
> > complying
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > the request in this way?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >   * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data
> > > > retention
> > > > > > > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required
> > for
> > > > > > > insurance purposes.
> > > > > > >   * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise
> > > > posts
> > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo
> > -
> > > > isn't
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes.
> > > > > > >   * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account
> > > > rather
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is
> > personally
> > > > in
> > > > > > favour
> > > > > > > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are.
> > > > > > >   * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and
> > > > anonymise
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > posts in the process.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Benjamin___
> > > > > > foundation-list mailing list
> > > > > > foundation-list@gnome.org
> > > > > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
> > > 
> > >
> 
> 

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Carlos Soriano]

Depends on the case I guess? If I have to go over 1000 comments probably
not. There could be other reasons, but I don't know yet because I didn't
manage many cases yet.

On 25 May 2018 at 21:24, Benjamin Berg  wrote:

> On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:20 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this offer?
> >
> > No, apart of the policy mentioned in the minutes.
>
> Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not make
> this offer in the future and in this case?
>
> Benjamin
>
> > On 25 May 2018 at 21:18, Benjamin Berg 
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > > > Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because
> > > that
> > > > was not the request. The request was as described "account
> > > deletion
> > > > in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete
> > > deletion,
> > > > including any activity.
> > >
> > > This doesn't make any sense to me. The user has explicitly
> > > requested a
> > > full deletion including all comments. You have solely decided that
> > > the
> > > comments would not be removed, but there was no decision on whether
> > > the
> > > comment text needs to stay as is.
> > >
> > > As such, I would expect that you explicitly offer the user to
> > > replace
> > > all text in relevant posts. Have you done so, if not, is there any
> > > reason to not make this offer?
> > >
> > > Benjamin
> > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg,  > > .net
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> > > > > >  * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user
> > > > > (Carlos)
> > > > > >   * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this
> > > > > >   * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a
> > > user
> > > > > for
> > > > > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no
> > > longer
> > > > > log in
> > > > > > to edit/delete their comments.
> > > > > >   * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that
> > > their
> > > > > posts
> > > > > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their
> > > legal
> > > > > right
> > > > > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action.
> > > > > >   * Comments can only be deleted by an admin.
> > > > > >   * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are
> > > > > stored on
> > > > > > GNOME servers.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to other
> > > > > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be
> > > > > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third
> > > parties in
> > > > > the
> > > > > case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the relevant
> > > > > text
> > > > > even if they cannot delete the comment itself.
> > > > >
> > > > > It sounds like the request for deletion was completely refused
> > > > > rather
> > > > > than complying with it as much as possible by changing all text
> > > to
> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not complying
> > > > > with
> > > > > the request in this way?
> > > > >
> > > > > >   * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data
> > > retention
> > > > > > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for
> > > > > > insurance purposes.
> > > > > >   * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise
> > > posts
> > > > > rather
> > > > > > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo -
> > > isn't
> > > > > that
> > > > > > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes.
> > > > > >   * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account
> > > rather
> > > > > than
> > > > > > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally
> > > in
> > > > > favour
> > > > > > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are.
> > > > > >   * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and
> > > anonymise
> > > > > the
> > > > > > posts in the process.
> > > > >
> > > > > Benjamin___
> > > > > foundation-list mailing list
> > > > > foundation-list@gnome.org
> > > > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
> >
> >
>
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Benjamin Berg]

On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:20 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this offer?
> 
> No, apart of the policy mentioned in the minutes.

Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not make
this offer in the future and in this case?

Benjamin

> On 25 May 2018 at 21:18, Benjamin Berg 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > > Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because
> > that
> > > was not the request. The request was as described "account
> > deletion
> > > in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete
> > deletion,
> > > including any activity.
> > 
> > This doesn't make any sense to me. The user has explicitly
> > requested a
> > full deletion including all comments. You have solely decided that
> > the
> > comments would not be removed, but there was no decision on whether
> > the
> > comment text needs to stay as is.
> > 
> > As such, I would expect that you explicitly offer the user to
> > replace
> > all text in relevant posts. Have you done so, if not, is there any
> > reason to not make this offer?
> > 
> > Benjamin
> > 
> > > Cheers
> > > 
> > > On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg,  > .net
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> > > > >  * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user
> > > > (Carlos)
> > > > >   * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this
> > > > >   * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a
> > user
> > > > for
> > > > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no
> > longer
> > > > log in
> > > > > to edit/delete their comments.
> > > > >   * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that
> > their
> > > > posts
> > > > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their
> > legal
> > > > right
> > > > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action.
> > > > >   * Comments can only be deleted by an admin.
> > > > >   * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are
> > > > stored on
> > > > > GNOME servers.
> > > > 
> > > > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to other
> > > > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be
> > > > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third
> > parties in
> > > > the
> > > > case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the relevant
> > > > text
> > > > even if they cannot delete the comment itself.
> > > > 
> > > > It sounds like the request for deletion was completely refused
> > > > rather
> > > > than complying with it as much as possible by changing all text
> > to
> > > > e.g.
> > > > "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not complying
> > > > with
> > > > the request in this way?
> > > > 
> > > > >   * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data
> > retention
> > > > > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for
> > > > > insurance purposes.
> > > > >   * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise
> > posts
> > > > rather
> > > > > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo -
> > isn't
> > > > that
> > > > > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes.
> > > > >   * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account
> > rather
> > > > than
> > > > > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally
> > in
> > > > favour
> > > > > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are.
> > > > >   * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and
> > anonymise
> > > > the
> > > > > posts in the process.
> > > > 
> > > > Benjamin___
> > > > foundation-list mailing list
> > > > foundation-list@gnome.org
> > > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
> 
> 

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

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Carlos Soriano]

Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this offer?
No, apart of the policy mentioned in the minutes.

On 25 May 2018 at 21:18, Benjamin Berg  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because that
> > was not the request. The request was as described "account deletion
> > in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete deletion,
> > including any activity.
>
> This doesn't make any sense to me. The user has explicitly requested a
> full deletion including all comments. You have solely decided that the
> comments would not be removed, but there was no decision on whether the
> comment text needs to stay as is.
>
> As such, I would expect that you explicitly offer the user to replace
> all text in relevant posts. Have you done so, if not, is there any
> reason to not make this offer?
>
> Benjamin
>
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg,  > > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> > > >  * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user
> > > (Carlos)
> > > >   * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this
> > > >   * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user
> > > for
> > > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no longer
> > > log in
> > > > to edit/delete their comments.
> > > >   * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that their
> > > posts
> > > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their legal
> > > right
> > > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action.
> > > >   * Comments can only be deleted by an admin.
> > > >   * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are
> > > stored on
> > > > GNOME servers.
> > >
> > > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to other
> > > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be
> > > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third parties in
> > > the
> > > case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the relevant
> > > text
> > > even if they cannot delete the comment itself.
> > >
> > > It sounds like the request for deletion was completely refused
> > > rather
> > > than complying with it as much as possible by changing all text to
> > > e.g.
> > > "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not complying
> > > with
> > > the request in this way?
> > >
> > > >   * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data retention
> > > > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for
> > > > insurance purposes.
> > > >   * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise posts
> > > rather
> > > > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo - isn't
> > > that
> > > > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes.
> > > >   * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account rather
> > > than
> > > > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally in
> > > favour
> > > > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are.
> > > >   * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and anonymise
> > > the
> > > > posts in the process.
> > >
> > > Benjamin___
> > > foundation-list mailing list
> > > foundation-list@gnome.org
> > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
>
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Benjamin Berg]

Hi,

On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because that
> was not the request. The request was as described "account deletion
> in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete deletion,
> including any activity.

This doesn't make any sense to me. The user has explicitly requested a
full deletion including all comments. You have solely decided that the
comments would not be removed, but there was no decision on whether the
comment text needs to stay as is.

As such, I would expect that you explicitly offer the user to replace
all text in relevant posts. Have you done so, if not, is there any
reason to not make this offer?

Benjamin

> Cheers
> 
> On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg,  > wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> > >  * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user
> > (Carlos)
> > >   * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this
> > >   * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user
> > for
> > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no longer
> > log in
> > > to edit/delete their comments.
> > >   * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that their
> > posts
> > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their legal
> > right
> > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action.
> > >   * Comments can only be deleted by an admin.
> > >   * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are
> > stored on
> > > GNOME servers.
> > 
> > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to other
> > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be
> > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third parties in
> > the
> > case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the relevant
> > text
> > even if they cannot delete the comment itself.
> > 
> > It sounds like the request for deletion was completely refused
> > rather
> > than complying with it as much as possible by changing all text to
> > e.g.
> > "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not complying
> > with
> > the request in this way?
> > 
> > >   * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data retention
> > > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for
> > > insurance purposes.
> > >   * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise posts
> > rather
> > > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo - isn't
> > that
> > > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes.
> > >   * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account rather
> > than
> > > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally in
> > favour
> > > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are.
> > >   * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and anonymise
> > the
> > > posts in the process.
> > 
> > Benjamin___
> > foundation-list mailing list
> > foundation-list@gnome.org
> > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

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

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Carlos Soriano]

Hi all,

Tobias, I'm not sure I would like to publicly post it here, as I don't
think it's a good idea to target a specific user, even if it was blocked.
In any case, unfortunately the GitLab UI tricked me in this one, and didn't
move it to the "ghost user" as the board suggested, but rather deleted
everything.

Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because that was not
the request. The request was as described "account deletion in GitLab for a
blocked user". The request was for complete deletion, including any
activity.

Cheers

On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg, 
wrote:

> On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> >  * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user (Carlos)
> >   * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this
> >   * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user for
> > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no longer log in
> > to edit/delete their comments.
> >   * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that their posts
> > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their legal right
> > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action.
> >   * Comments can only be deleted by an admin.
> >   * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are stored on
> > GNOME servers.
>
> There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to other
> services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be
> retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third parties in the
> case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the relevant text
> even if they cannot delete the comment itself.
>
> It sounds like the request for deletion was completely refused rather
> than complying with it as much as possible by changing all text to e.g.
> "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not complying with
> the request in this way?
>
> >   * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data retention
> > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for
> > insurance purposes.
> >   * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise posts rather
> > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo - isn't that
> > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes.
> >   * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account rather than
> > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally in favour
> > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are.
> >   * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and anonymise the
> > posts in the process.
>
> Benjamin___
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
>
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Benjamin Berg]

On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
>  * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user (Carlos)
>   * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this
>   * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user for
> inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no longer log in
> to edit/delete their comments.
>   * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that their posts
> be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their legal right
> (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action.
>   * Comments can only be deleted by an admin.
>   * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are stored on
> GNOME servers.

There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to other
services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be
retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third parties in the
case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the relevant text
even if they cannot delete the comment itself.

It sounds like the request for deletion was completely refused rather
than complying with it as much as possible by changing all text to e.g.
"comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not complying with
the request in this way?

>   * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data retention
> policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for
> insurance purposes.
>   * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise posts rather
> than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo - isn't that
> what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes.
>   * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account rather than
> deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally in favour
> but doesn't know what the legal requirements are.
>   * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and anonymise the
> posts in the process.

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

Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Tobias Mueller]

Hi,

On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
>  * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user (Carlos)
>   * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this
>   * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user for
> inappropriate behaviour.
Thanks for keeping our environment a little sane.
Out of curiosity: Which bug is this about?

>   * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are stored on
> GNOME servers.
Sure. But we also have precedent for removing mails from archives ;-)
And we do block access to certain bugzilla comments.

FTR: I'm generally not a big fan of filtering information, but I
appreciate that it's better in some cases to not publicly show certain
things.

Cheers,
  Tobi
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May

[Allan Day]

= Foundation Board Minutes for Tuesday, May 22nd 2018, 18:00 UTC =

Next meeting date Tuesday, May 29th 2018, 18:00 UTC

== Attending ==

 * AllanDay
 * MegFord (planned early departure)
 * DidierRoche
 * CarlosSoriano
 * NuritziSanchez
 * CosimoCecchi
 * NeilMcGovern  (planned early departure)
 * RosannaYuen

== Regrets ==

 * AlexandreFranke

== Missing ==

== Agenda ==

 * LAS GNOME update (Nuritzi)
 * Request for account deletion in GitLab for blocked user (Carlos)
 * Permission for Rosanna to fly to and attend GUADEC (Nuritzi)
 * GUADEC 2019 (Allan)

Deferred:

 * Engagement Committee (Nuritzi)
  * Vote for charter and propose members
  * https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Board/issues/16

== Minutes ==

Neil and Meg had left by this point in the meeting.

 * LAS GNOME update (Nuritzi)
  * LAS GNOME is getting up to speed again. Nuritzi has shared a
proposal document and budget.
  * There's been an internal bidding process
  * The current plan is to have it in Denver, September 6-9th
  * There's already some funds for LAS GNOME, due to sponsorship
packages that have already been agreed
  * It's projected to run at a profit
  * ACTION: board members to review the proposal document, with a view
to vote at next week's meeting

 * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user (Carlos)
  * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this
  * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user for
inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no longer log in
to edit/delete their comments.
  * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that their posts
be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their legal right
(under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action.
  * Comments can only be deleted by an admin.
  * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are stored on
GNOME servers.
  * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data retention
policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for
insurance purposes.
  * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise posts rather
than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo - isn't that
what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes.
  * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account rather than
deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally in favour
but doesn't know what the legal requirements are.
  * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and anonymise the
posts in the process.

 * Permission for Rosanna to fly to and attend GUADEC (Nuritzi)
  * VOTE: approve Rosanna's travel to GUADEC 2018
   * +1 unanimous

 * GUADEC 2019 (Allan)
  * https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Board/issues/51
  * The call for bids was announced a while ago, and we haven't
received any bids.
  * If the Foundation provided better support, people might be more
willing to hold GUADEC. This is something we should look into.
  * Can we return to a previous venue?
  * Can we partner with another organisation?
  * ACTIONS: do another mail out to foundation-list, go through the
list in the issue
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list