On Sunday, 28 October 2018 17:20:04 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote: > > Sure, but again that's why we have a committee behind who will evaluate > the > > charges and decide what the proper action to be taken is. If the charges > are > > fake, then the accused would of course not be affected in any way. And if > the > > accuser keeps making false accusations, that's the one who could face > > sanctions. > > Sanctions like ban with additional false accusations about harassment could > be sent to mass media to create negative image of the community.
And if the mass media does buy into the fake story, what can we do? The attacker can seize on any particular point of our community, whether there's a CoC or not. They could attack us for *not* having one in the first place and having no method to address their fake injutsice. They could attack us for having a security mailing list that judged a particular issue they reported not to be a security problem, etc. If they want to be malicious, they'll find a way. And if the media sides with them, not giving us a chance to explain, what are we going to do? > Let's take a look at archlinux CoC for example: > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct > > Literally no vulnerable promises about protecting from harassment that > could be hard to keep. Additional mention at archwiki not to play with > controvertial non-related subjects at technical place: Which promises in other CoCs do you find vulnerable? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
