also sprach Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@debian.org> [2017-05-15 15:37 +0200]:
> I also don't like such list. First, who will enforce it? DPL?
> Anti-harassment or organizers?
This — incidence response — is in part what we have to define.
Someone needs to have the power to enforce the rules, attendees need
to display their consent to this upon registration, and there really
ought to be well-defined processes in place *before* something
happens.
> But the main reason: the list is very weak and it seems to be done
> from harasser point of view. The ban is also just temporary.
It *is* written *to* the potential harasser, yes, but maybe that can
and should be improved.
> It seems we say: "harassment could happens, don't do it again".
> Just an warning (#3), apologies (#1) or promise to stop (#2).
I think you are referring to the currently valid CoC:
https://debconf.org/codeofconduct.shtml
Yes, that is weak, and this was precisely one of the motivations to
rework this.
The current list shows that only the first two of six possible
consequences are temporary:
1. immediate ban from the venue for the remainder of the day, and
possibly the next day;
2. immediate ban from the rest of the conference;
3. immediate ban from the rest of the conference, and all future
conferences;
4. immediate ban from the Debian Project;
5. public statement about the incident by the conference
organisers;
6. report of the incident to the appropriate authorities.
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debconf.org> @martinkrafft
: :' : DebConf orga team
`. `'`
`- DebConf17 Montreal, CA: https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf17
DebConf18 Hsinchu, Taiwan: https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf18
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital GPG signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)