[Linux-aus] Linux Australia Code of Conduct -

[elliott-brennan]

> Russell Coker <russell at coker.com.au>
> Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:52:46 +1100

> The problem with humor is that it's very subjective.

Very true.

Restrictions on humor> can't be enforced by a 
computer they need human interpretation.  But like a
> lot of this it comes down to the judgement of the conference organisers who
> will assess the situation.

Absolutely. This it the reason I was curious as to 
how these things are managed and by whom.

Humour can be easily misunderstood. The people 
dealing with the issues need to be very 
considerate and aim more towards an apology first.

You can apologise to people who are offended by a 
joke even if you think they're overly-sensitive 
and precious. You're not admitting fault or blame, 
just acknowledging their feelings of hurt.

> As these discussions have continued over the last year (and for more than a
> year in other places) it has constantly surprised me that the opposition to
> various procedures for dealing with harassment etc has never focussed on how
> to achieve a fair trial.
>
> Surely the solution to problems of interpretation would involve giving the
> defendant the right to an advocate, time to prepare a defense, and a panel of
> judges adjudicating the matter.
>
> The impression I have received from all past discussions is that if an
> accusation was made the defendant would be put on trial with a very small
> number of people adjudicating (maybe only one person), no representation, and
> no prior notice of the accusation.  This concerns me a lot more than the
> possibility of censure for a joke.

See my comment above.

Without knowing the processes intended, I'm 
commenting blind :)

I would agree that there needs to be the same 
people (preferably) dealing with each issue - this 
is for consistency.

There should be three at least people who make a 
final decision (prevents onerous responsibility 
and deadlocks).

Preferably they should be people who have some 
experience.

There also needs to be an adherence to the concept 
of natural justice - that you get a fair hearing 
into whatever you are being accused of, that it is 
made clear to you whomever has said what and what, 
in detail, is being alleged.

You should have time to determine your response 
and have a witness if you choose.

Focusing on a mutual agreement or apology would be 
the main aim, as long as it's not a physical assault.

To be evicted from, or 'incriminated' during, a 
conference, is a huge step and needs careful 
consideration .

Again, though I've dealt with this stuff for 
years, I'm not au fai with what the organisers are 
planning or have already determined.


Regards,

Patrick