| 1 |
I really do hate discussing this. I will pray for Gentoo, friends, as |
| 2 |
I hope the distribution continues to receive useful contributions. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> Now a bunch of community members get upset about Fred being booted out |
| 7 |
> without reason. Fred claims it is because he disagrees with the |
| 8 |
> leadership on something. People start arguing endlessly about |
| 9 |
> openness. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Explain why the user was removed. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Ultimately the leaders just want Fred gone so that new contributors |
| 15 |
> aren't getting driven away. They can't explain that because then they |
| 16 |
> create potential civil liability for the project. The problem is that |
| 17 |
> the debate goes on for over a year despite intervening elections and |
| 18 |
> now this becomes the issue that is driving new contributors away. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This is insane. If they sue produce the emails. At least in the US, |
| 22 |
the suit will be thrown out, as truth is a defense to defamation. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If I am not a lawyer and as such can not understand the law and my |
| 25 |
opinion should not be trusted, then, as I assume you are not a lawyer, |
| 26 |
your opinion should not be trusted either. Even if you have consulted |
| 27 |
with a lawyer you are not a lawyer and there is no reason to believe |
| 28 |
you could have understood what the lawyer told you. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I do not present this as sophistry: for any progress to be made in the |
| 31 |
discussion of your hypothetical situation I sincerely think you need |
| 32 |
to consider the above. At what point is one's knowledge of the law |
| 33 |
enough to act within society? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> What solution would you propose for this problem? It isn't |
| 36 |
> hypothetical at all - I can think of one case in Gentoo's past where |
| 37 |
> this happened that I'm aware of, and I'd be shocked if it were the |
| 38 |
> only one. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Stop using the law as a boogeyman. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Be transparent in why decisions were made. There are no legal concerns |
| 44 |
save fair use (the copyright of any published emails) and the |
| 45 |
publication of private facts.[1] For a tort involving the disclosure |
| 46 |
of public facts, you would need to have no reason to publish those |
| 47 |
facts save for the damage they could cause. You may also need to |
| 48 |
publish them in a manner far more public than a Linux distribution |
| 49 |
mailing list. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
To continue the example I doubt anyone would care if it was just a |
| 53 |
single Fred, though they may be slightly put off. Multiple Fred (or |
| 54 |
related) incidents later it would seem rather strange. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
As I have tried to explain my issue with the closure of the mailing |
| 57 |
list is not the removal of a user, but the lack of openness with which |
| 58 |
decisions are made. Points are brought up in good faith and then |
| 59 |
ignored. Requests for clarification may not be greeted amicably. |
| 60 |
Overall, this makes it seem like the closure of the development list |
| 61 |
is to keep decisions from being questioned. If there were hecklers |
| 62 |
asking stupid questions that would be one thing, but that is not what |
| 63 |
it looks like to me. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
I will note most developers go quietly about maintaining their charges |
| 67 |
and make reasonable decisions. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Cheers, |
| 70 |
R0b0t1 |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
[1]: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publication-private-facts |
Archives