1 |
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 12:48 +0200, Lukasz Damentko wrote: |
2 |
> 2008/8/1 Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>: |
3 |
> > On 23:17 Thu 31 Jul , Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
4 |
> >> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote |
5 |
> >> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev |
6 |
> >> list to see. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > I know at least one person has already submitted an agenda item. Please |
9 |
> > do so again here along with a brief summary, so we can get them all in |
10 |
> > one place. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > I waste a lot of time digging through lists looking for requested agenda |
13 |
> > items, and I could be spending it making Gentoo better instead. |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > -- |
16 |
> > Thanks, |
17 |
> > Donnie |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > Donnie Berkholz |
20 |
> > Developer, Gentoo Linux |
21 |
> > Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Fair enough. Let me wrap up the IRC part. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> 1. I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our |
27 |
> developer being banned from Freenode without providing us with a |
28 |
> reason. The situation looks like one of Freenode staffers overreacted |
29 |
> over something Chris said during previous Council meeting and banned |
30 |
> him to prevent him from attending next meetings when he was supposed |
31 |
> to provide more information on the CoC topic. The ban was removed |
32 |
> after an hour, but they still refuse to provide us with reasons for it |
33 |
> which looks like (mostly because we weren't shown any sane |
34 |
> justification for the ban) a cover up operation. It would be good if |
35 |
> Council officially protested against that ban and demanded a detailed |
36 |
> explanation from Freenode staff. |
37 |
> |
38 |
|
39 |
After some discussions, I think that legally Freenode are pretty |
40 |
severely limited in what they may and may not provide to us concerning |
41 |
any of their users. To them, Chris is a Freenode user and their own |
42 |
privacy policy prohibits them from disclosing anything private |
43 |
concerning him. They are also subject to various international privacy |
44 |
rules, but I do not know the extent of these. |
45 |
|
46 |
So, as I understand it, Council can ask for anything it likes, but |
47 |
Freenode's lawyer is not going to allow Freenode to provide much |
48 |
information without written consent and proof of identity from Chris, |
49 |
and I believe this is not negotiable. For Freenode routinely to feed |
50 |
reasons for any actions involving Gentoo developers back to Gentoo |
51 |
management, their lawyer has told them they would need a retroactive |
52 |
written consent form from *every* developer along with proof of |
53 |
identity. As I read the lawyer's statement, this is an absolute. |
54 |
|
55 |
Any provider of IRC services (including us if we ever provide them to |
56 |
the public) is going to be under similar restrictions, I believe. |
57 |
|
58 |
I have mentioned this briefly to the trustees because the Foundation is |
59 |
concerned with the legal rules controlling Gentoo, its services, and its |
60 |
service providers. I am hoping for more details from Freenode staff, |
61 |
but cannot guarantee them. |
62 |
|
63 |
Required ethical disclaimer: I provide this only for information. It |
64 |
is not a legal opinion, nor am I qualified to give a legal opinion on |
65 |
international privacy laws. I will go so far as to say that the |
66 |
Freenode privacy statement looks as if it was drafted by a lawyer to |
67 |
ensure Freenode's users that (to quote): |
68 |
"PDPC will not publish that information or provide it to any other third |
69 |
party without your explicit permission, except as required by law or as |
70 |
appropriate in the course of an investigation of criminal wrongdoing. |
71 |
PDPC will make a good faith effort to maintain the privacy of your |
72 |
personal information." |
73 |
Thus they are exposed to a law suit if they provide the information I |
74 |
think you are asking for. |
75 |
(Privacy policy at: http://freenode.net/group_privacy.shtml ) |
76 |
> 2. I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where |
77 |
> third parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who can't. |
78 |
> Like our own small and created just for this purpose IRC server. A |
79 |
> situation when a third party may disallow our developer from attending |
80 |
> a meeting without even telling us why isn't the healthiest one. We |
81 |
> should be independent from such decisions of third parties so they |
82 |
> can't politically influence Council decisions by removing people who |
83 |
> are inconvenient for them. Now when it (most probably) happened once, |
84 |
> we have no other choice but to believe it's possible it will happen |
85 |
> again. |
86 |
> |
87 |
> 3. I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org alias |
88 |
> instead of irc.freenode.net in our docs, news items and so on. The |
89 |
> alias would allow us to move out of the network more easily should we |
90 |
> ever decide to do so. Debian did exactly the same a couple of months |
91 |
> ago prior to them moving out to OFTC |
92 |
> (http://www.debian.org/News/2006/20060604) so maybe it would be a |
93 |
> good idea to have this for Gentoo too. Infra (Shyam Mani) say it isn't |
94 |
> a problem at all to create and maintain it, we in fact already have |
95 |
> something like this pointing at Freenode, it would be just a question |
96 |
> of updating that alias and updating our docs with it. It would |
97 |
> increase our independence from Freenode and make future network |
98 |
> switching much easier should we ever decide it's time to part our ways |
99 |
> with our current IRC service provider. |
100 |
> |
101 |
> The intention behind all three items is to increase our independence |
102 |
> from our IRC service provider. |
103 |
> |
104 |
> Kind regards, |
105 |
> |
106 |
> Lukasz Damentko |
107 |
|
108 |
Regards, |
109 |
Ferris |
110 |
-- |
111 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
112 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |