[Linux-aus] Minutes of Council Meeting Tuesday 11th February 2014

[Michael Cordover]

On 17 February 2014 12:00, Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net> wrote:
> I agree that private mail is private, even if its a private follow-up from a mailing list post,
> in which case any abuse then may fall under a general code of conduct, which we do
> not have, the closest is the "Values" but this is not binding on members, perhaps it
> needs to be?

I think having a general code of conduct (maybe the LCA COC) binding
on everyone is not a bad idea at all. I've also seen mailing lists
with an automated (or semi-automated) monthly/quarterly "reminder of
the rules" email. Given the relatively low volume of linux-aus, I'd
suggest not more than quarterly. It'd be nice though to have something
to point to. Not just conduct but also FAQs, nettiquete, statement
about what is relevant etc. This kind of thing may be on the website
but I certainly haven't seen it.

> But in such cases you need be careful, eg:  two friends may have a hissy at each other,
> they may both be LA member, but is not where they met, they decide to jump in on a
> thread and send a nasty mail to the other, the other one complains to LA...

I don't think we need to worry about this. It's LA's problem to the
extent LA is involved. If it strays on list or in response to list
items, we should respond. If it doesn't, or if the root cause is
outside LA, I think we can easily step away.

> However, if the abuse is threatening harm to life or property, then there is only ever one
> port of call, the police. If someone is harassing you, you tell them to stop, if they persist,
> again, the avenue there is the police.

I agree, all abuse policies eventually end up with "call the police."

> On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 21:20 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > I believe that the policy should clearly state that private mail of a
> > threatening or harassing nature that is sent in response to list mail should
> > NOT be considered to be private.  I also believe that replies to mailing list
>
> You may be at odds with some laws there (copyright and privacy acts).

The Privacy Act doesn't apply in these circumstances. As for the
Copyright Act, I think there's an implied licence, if not a fair
dealing for criticism or review, and if neither a real difficulty
establishing damage sufficient to recover the costs of a lawsuit.
You'd really struggle to get anywhere there.

Anyway, my 2c.

 - mjec