Re: Code of Conduct at events

Many of SPI's Associated Projects hold conferences or other kinds of
real-world meetups, often with SPI assistance.

Recently I've been very disturbed to see that some FLOSS conference
organisers apparently don't think it's their business to see that
attendees to their events aren't sexually assaulted by other
attendees. (And the blogospheric victim-blaming heaped upon the most
recent victim[0] to come forward has been utterly vile.)

I remember attending my first BiCon[1] and found a very clear section
in the front of the programme setting expectations of behaviour by
BiCon members and promising that the con committee would take
complaints seriously. I had assumed that this was necessary because
BiCon is on a topic related to sexuality and this had brought out
undesirable behaviours in some people.

I'm sad to say that it appears that I was wrong and that unwanted
sexual attention up and to including fairly serious assaults is not
unusual at at least some FLOSS events.

I think SPI could usefully play a role here by encouraging and helping
our Associated Projects take more responsibility for these issues.

I think we should at the very least draft a Model Conference Code of
Conduct and encourage our Associated Projects to adopt or adapt it for
their events.

As an example of the kind of thing I'm thinking of, see my initial
draft below. I shamelessly cribbed and then hacked-and-slashed the
BiCon 2010 CoC.[2]

Ian.

[0] http://blog.nerdchic.net/archives/418/
[1] UK national bisexual convention.
[2] http://www.bicon2010.org.uk/bicon/code-of-conduct/

DRAFT MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT FOR FLOSS CONFERENCES AND EVENTS

Why do we need a code of conduct ?
----------------------------------

Over the years we've found that while most people will be able to have
a fun and constructive time, there are unfortunately occasions when
some people's behaviour falls short of the standards we expect.

This Code applies not just to the formally organised venue and
accomodation, but also to fringe and offsite activities associated
with the conference, including informal social meetings.

Violence
--------

No-one, under any circumstances, should threaten or use violence or
force.

Personal Space
--------------

Please don't invade people's personal space without invitation. This
includes sexual touching and hugs, but it also includes any other form
of touching. Ask first.

No means _no_
-------------

No-one should be put under any pressure to join in with things they
don't want to. This includes any sexual behaviour, but it also
includes hugs, touching, playing a game, or being in a photo.

It's fine to ask someone once if they would like to do something.
Pestering someone counts as harassment; if someone asks you to leave
them alone, do so.

"No", "Stop", and "Don't do that" are final and will be taken at face
value by the organisers and volunteers.

Your responsibility
-------------------

It's everyone's event, so everyone has a part to play. If you notice
an incident of harassment, or anything else that doesn't belong here,
please report it to the organisers as soon as possible.

Respecting Difference
---------------------

People come to Free and Open Source Software from a variety of
backgrounds and beliefs. You are welcome to share and explain your
own beliefs, but we ask that you allow others the space for theirs.

Racism, sexism, homophobia and other such behaviour will not be
tolerated.

Access is not just a matter of wheelchairs. Different aspects of the
environment affect different people. (Some people may be lipreading;
some need smoke-free space; some find busy crowds difficult.) You
can't always know without being told, but try to be aware of what the
people around you might need to make the event accessible to them.

The Organisers' Responsibility
------------------------------

We will try to deal fairly and respectfully with any complaints,
suggestions or feedback which you bring to us.

We will log every complaint brought to us and will pass those records
on to the next conference.

Breaches of this Code of Conduct will in most cases be met with a
warning from a member of the organising team.

In the event of serious breaches of this Code of Conduct, or multiple
warnings, the organisers will normally ask the offending person to
leave the event. This will void the offending person's registration
and they will not receive any refund of registration fee or
accommodation costs. Refusal to leave will be referred to the venue
security and/or police.

The conference organising team reserves the right to pass on to the
relevant project leadership, and any relevant future event organisers,
the name of any person given a warning, or asked to leave, including
description of the circumstances.

--

On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 02:48:52PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>...
> Recently I've been very disturbed to see that some FLOSS conference
> organisers apparently don't think it's their business to see that
> attendees to their events aren't sexually assaulted by other
> attendees. (And the blogospheric victim-blaming heaped upon the most
> recent victim[0] to come forward has been utterly vile.)
>...

In my opinion part of the criticism towards the victim is correct:

Reporting a sexual assault to the police is the right thing to do.

If the blog post wouldn't have named the name of the alleged offender it
would have been very good.

Public denouncing of non-convicted people is a violation of Human
Rights. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be
presumed innocent until proved guilty.

In my home country (Germany) even a murderer who has served his sentence
has the right of reintegration into society and no longer having his
name mentioned in public reports of the crime.

That guy might have committed a criminal offence, and the police and
courts handle that.

This is a bad thing and if he's guilty he should be punished, but it is
not correct to destroy someone's (work) life by forever associating his
name in the never-forgetting Internet with a sexual assault.

And the publicity "G employee assaulted by T employee" really doesn't
make it better.

I'd expect a code of conduct to also disallow publically accusing other
people of crimes.

> Ian.
>...
> DRAFT MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT FOR FLOSS CONFERENCES AND EVENTS
>...
> The Organisers' Responsibility
> ------------------------------
>
> We will try to deal fairly and respectfully with any complaints,
> suggestions or feedback which you bring to us.
>
> We will log every complaint brought to us and will pass those records
> on to the next conference.
>
> Breaches of this Code of Conduct will in most cases be met with a
> warning from a member of the organising team.
>
> In the event of serious breaches of this Code of Conduct, or multiple
> warnings, the organisers will normally ask the offending person to
> leave the event. This will void the offending person's registration
> and they will not receive any refund of registration fee or
> accommodation costs. Refusal to leave will be referred to the venue
> security and/or police.
>
> The conference organising team reserves the right to pass on to the
> relevant project leadership, and any relevant future event organisers,
> the name of any person given a warning,

If it was only a warning it hardly warrants being passed to anyone else.

> or asked to leave, including description of the circumstances.

Why are you not saying that any assault should be reported to the police?

You start arguing with a criminal offence, but instead of delegating the
handling to the police you want to introduce a system of information
keeping and passing about non-convicted people.

Especially in the area of sexual assaults there is additionally the
problem that there are real sexual assaults, but also many cases of
wrong accusations of sexual assaults. That is hard to judge for the
police and courts, and definitely nothing to handle by conference
organisers.

Let me try to make my point clear:

If someone accuses me of a sexual assault, I want:
- that case to be handled by the police and courts,
- not any information about it being passed behind my back and
- not being publically accused of it.

Otherwise my (work) life will be destroyed even if I'm not guilty.

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> Public denouncing of non-convicted people is a violation of Human
> Rights.

Nonsense.

> I'd expect a code of conduct to also disallow publically accusing other
> people of crimes.

Ridiculous.

Ian.

Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> > Public denouncing of non-convicted people is a violation of Human
> > Rights.
>
> Nonsense.

It depends exactly what the denouncement is, I think.

> > I'd expect a code of conduct to also disallow publically accusing other
> > people of crimes.
>
> Ridiculous.

Well, yes, as if the accusation isn't public to some degree, then there
wouldn't be fair process, which would also violate some human right.

I think a code of conduct is a good idea, but I'm not sure if there's
too much emphasis on one particular type of misbehaviour for free and
open source software projects. I think some SPI projects have had
other sorts of problems at events too: could SPI poll the liaisons,
please?

Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
Webmaster, Debian Developer, Past Koha RM, statistician, former lecturer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire for various work http://www.software.coop/products/

Hi Ian!

* Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [2010-11-10 12:32]:

> Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> > Public denouncing of non-convicted people is a violation of Human
> > Rights.
>
> Nonsense.

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and
reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against
such interference or attack

> > I'd expect a code of conduct to also disallow publically accusing other
> > people of crimes.
>
> Ridiculous.

Article 11
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any
act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national
or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a
heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time
the penal offence was committed.

Martin

MJ Ray writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> I think a code of conduct is a good idea, but I'm not sure if there's
> too much emphasis on one particular type of misbehaviour for free and
> open source software projects.

What are the other kinds of misbehaviour that you're thinking of ?

> I think some SPI projects have had other sorts of problems at
> events too: could SPI poll the liaisons, please?

I was sort of hoping that the project liasons are reading this list.

Ian.

Martin Wuertele writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [2010-11-10 12:32]:
> > Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> > > Public denouncing of non-convicted people is a violation of Human
> > > Rights.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> Article 12
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
> family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and
> reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against
> such interference or attack

What that means is that you can sue for libel.

> > > I'd expect a code of conduct to also disallow publically accusing other
> > > people of crimes.
> >
> > Ridiculous.
>
> Article 11
> (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any
> act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national
> or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a
> heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time
> the penal offence was committed.

You have completely misunderstood that article. That's the
prohibition against retrospectively making things crimes.

Ian.
who has the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the wall above
the mantelpiece in his living room

* Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [101111 14:35]:
> Martin Wuertele writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> > Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [2010-11-10 12:32]:
> > > Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> > > > Public denouncing of non-convicted people is a violation of Human
> > > > Rights.
> > >
> > > Nonsense.
> >
> > Article 12
> > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
> > family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and
> > reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against
> > such interference or attack
>
> What that means is that you can sue for libel.

Which is only one of the crimes you can be found guilty of if you
denounce people publically (what the conditions are that you will be
convicted will depend on the jurisdiction in question, though).

Bernhard R. Link

Bernhard R. Link writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> * Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [101111 14:35]:
> > Martin Wuertele writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> > > Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [2010-11-10 12:32]:
> > > > Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> > > > > Public denouncing of non-convicted people is a violation of Human
> > > > > Rights.
...
> > What [Article 12] means is that you can sue for libel.
>
> Which is only one of the crimes you can be found guilty of if you
> denounce people publically (what the conditions are that you will be
> convicted will depend on the jurisdiction in question, though).

I don't know how things are in your jurisdiction, but even in Britain
which has notoriously harsh libel laws, merely denouncing an
unconvicted person is certainly not criminally punishable.

Even denouncing a person who has been acquitted can be perfectly
defensible; even in the UK, in a libel trial you will only be called
upon to demonstrate that what you said was true on the balance of
probabilities.

Ian.

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> Even denouncing a person who has been acquitted can be perfectly
> defensible; even in the UK, in a libel trial you will only be called
> upon to demonstrate that what you said was true on the balance of
> probabilities.

Also I should point out that this entire subthread is a red herring.

I am certainly not suggesting that conference organisers should post a
public statement saying that Bob has been ejected from the conference
for a sexual assault on Alice.

I _am_ suggesting that if the conference organisers receive a
complaint that Bob seriously sexually assaulted Alice, they should
investigate. If on investigation they are sufficiently convinced that
it's true, they should eject Bob.

And they should tell the organisers of the next conference so that the
next organisers can make an informed decision about whether Bob should
be admitted, and if he is, will be able to deal competently with any
further complaints made against Bob.

If someone was stealing laptops surely there would surely be no doubt
that the conference organisers would deal with it in this way. So it
is crimes which are (a) usually committed by men against women and
(b) often normalised or unpunished by larger society and which
(c) generate a lot of vitriol and controversy when you suggest doing
something about them, which get the special blind-eye treatment.

Ian.

On 11/11/10 17:57 , Ian Jackson wrote:
> I _am_ suggesting that if the conference organisers receive a
> complaint that Bob seriously sexually assaulted Alice, they should
> investigate. If on investigation they are sufficiently convinced that
> it's true, they should eject Bob.

I think many of us disagree here: if such a serious accusation is made
it should be investigated by professionals, ie the policy.

Wichert.

Wichert Akkerman writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> On 11/11/10 17:57 , Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I _am_ suggesting that if the conference organisers receive a
> > complaint that Bob seriously sexually assaulted Alice, they should
> > investigate. If on investigation they are sufficiently convinced that
> > it's true, they should eject Bob.
>
> I think many of us disagree here: if such a serious accusation is made
> it should be investigated by professionals, ie the policy.

So if someone was at the conference and the organisers were convinced
that they were stealing laptops, the organisers would just call the
police and if the police don't arrest the culprit and imprison them
right away, they would allow the thief to continue ?

Ian.

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
>> On 11/11/10 17:57 , Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> I _am_ suggesting that if the conference organisers receive a
>>> complaint that Bob seriously sexually assaulted Alice, they should
>>> investigate. If on investigation they are sufficiently convinced that
>>> it's true, they should eject Bob.
>>
>> I think many of us disagree here: if such a serious accusation is made
>> it should be investigated by professionals, ie the policy.
>
> So if someone was at the conference and the organisers were convinced
> that they were stealing laptops, the organisers would just call the
> police and if the police don't arrest the culprit and imprison them
> right away, they would allow the thief to continue ?

It should be noted that in most cases conferences take place on private
property and the organiser and venue both retain the right to eject people
at their sole discretion. What you're asking for is parameters for that
discretion to replace the existing standard of reasonable necessity.

It isn't that organisers cannot already remove such people, you'd just
like to make sure that they know they can?

David

- -
David Graham
cdlu(at)railfan(dot)ca

On 11/11/10 18:23 , Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
>> On 11/11/10 17:57 , Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> I _am_ suggesting that if the conference organisers receive a
>>> complaint that Bob seriously sexually assaulted Alice, they should
>>> investigate. If on investigation they are sufficiently convinced that
>>> it's true, they should eject Bob.
>>
>> I think many of us disagree here: if such a serious accusation is made
>> it should be investigated by professionals, ie the policy.
>
> So if someone was at the conference and the organisers were convinced
> that they were stealing laptops, the organisers would just call the
> police and if the police don't arrest the culprit and imprison them
> right away, they would allow the thief to continue ?

I am extremely sceptical of the capability of people to make correct
accusations or to prove them. The police should be much more capable to
do so than conference organisers due to their training and experience,
and if they decide not to arrest someone they probably have a good
reason to.

Wichert.

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Wichert Akkerman <wichert(at)wiggy(dot)net> wrote:
> On 11/11/10 18:23 , Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> Wichert Akkerman writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
>>>
>>> On 11/11/10 17:57 , Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I _am_ suggesting that if the conference organisers receive a
>>>> complaint that Bob seriously sexually assaulted Alice, they should
>>>> investigate.  If on investigation they are sufficiently convinced that
>>>> it's true, they should eject Bob.
>>>
>>> I think many of us disagree here: if such a serious accusation is made
>>> it should be investigated by professionals, ie the policy.
>>
>> So if someone was at the conference and the organisers were convinced
>> that they were stealing laptops, the organisers would just call the
>> police and if the police don't arrest the culprit and imprison them
>> right away, they would allow the thief to continue ?
>
> I am extremely sceptical of the capability of people to make correct
> accusations or to prove them. The police should be much more capable to do
> so than conference organisers due to their training and experience, and if
> they decide not to arrest someone they probably have a good reason to.
>

Fortunately we don't live our lives requiring absolute proof for
everything we act on. Proof in these situations has already been
pointed out to be extremely hard to establish, but that doesn't mean
the events didn't happen or shouldn't be acted on. People have to
make decisions like this all the time without proof of what they are
hearing. Also, as has been pointed out, the burden of proof for
finding someone guilty should rightly be a higher in a court, but
requiring that standard socially doesn't seem to make sense.

The default position of favouring such a high standard of proof and
without it doing nothing is exactly why these situations are prevelant
and ignored. Social pressure is what's going to change that.

Also, fortunately, having the police involved and ejecting someone
from a conference aren't mutually exclusive actions.

-ryan

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 09:58:37AM -0800, Ryan Golbeck wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Wichert Akkerman <wichert(at)wiggy(dot)net> wrote:
> > On 11/11/10 18:23 , Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>
> >> Wichert Akkerman writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> >>>
> >>> On 11/11/10 17:57 , Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I _am_ suggesting that if the conference organisers receive a
> >>>> complaint that Bob seriously sexually assaulted Alice, they should
> >>>> investigate.  If on investigation they are sufficiently convinced that
> >>>> it's true, they should eject Bob.
> >>>
> >>> I think many of us disagree here: if such a serious accusation is made
> >>> it should be investigated by professionals, ie the policy.
> >>
> >> So if someone was at the conference and the organisers were convinced
> >> that they were stealing laptops, the organisers would just call the
> >> police and if the police don't arrest the culprit and imprison them
> >> right away, they would allow the thief to continue ?
> >
> > I am extremely sceptical of the capability of people to make correct
> > accusations or to prove them. The police should be much more capable to do
> > so than conference organisers due to their training and experience, and if
> > they decide not to arrest someone they probably have a good reason to.
>
> Fortunately we don't live our lives requiring absolute proof for
> everything we act on. Proof in these situations has already been
> pointed out to be extremely hard to establish, but that doesn't mean
> the events didn't happen or shouldn't be acted on. People have to
> make decisions like this all the time without proof of what they are
> hearing. Also, as has been pointed out, the burden of proof for
> finding someone guilty should rightly be a higher in a court, but
> requiring that standard socially doesn't seem to make sense.
>
> The default position of favouring such a high standard of proof and
> without it doing nothing is exactly why these situations are prevelant
> and ignored. Social pressure is what's going to change that.

The level of proof required at court is not that extremely high, and
if you don't reach that level of proof there's a high probability
that the person is not guilty.

>...
> -ryan

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:34:52PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Bernhard R. Link writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> > * Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [101111 14:35]:
> > > Martin Wuertele writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> > > > Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [2010-11-10 12:32]:
> > > > > Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Code of Conduct at events"):
> > > > > > Public denouncing of non-convicted people is a violation of Human
> > > > > > Rights.
> ...
> > > What [Article 12] means is that you can sue for libel.
> >
> > Which is only one of the crimes you can be found guilty of if you
> > denounce people publically (what the conditions are that you will be
> > convicted will depend on the jurisdiction in question, though).
>
> I don't know how things are in your jurisdiction, but even in Britain
> which has notoriously harsh libel laws, merely denouncing an
> unconvicted person is certainly not criminally punishable.

In Germany:
Fine or up to 2 years in prison if you cannot prove that your
accusation is true. [1]

> Even denouncing a person who has been acquitted can be perfectly
> defensible;
>...

In Germany:
Fine or up to 5 years in prison. [2,3]

> Ian.

cu
Adrian

[1] http://bundesrecht.juris.de/stgb/__186.html
[2] http://bundesrecht.juris.de/stgb/__187.html
[3] http://bundesrecht.juris.de/stgb/__190.html

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

* Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [101111 17:35]:
> > Which is only one of the crimes you can be found guilty of if you
> > denounce people publically (what the conditions are that you will be
> > convicted will depend on the jurisdiction in question, though).
>
> I don't know how things are in your jurisdiction, but even in Britain
> which has notoriously harsh libel laws, merely denouncing an
> unconvicted person is certainly not criminally punishable.
>
> Even denouncing a person who has been acquitted can be perfectly
> defensible; even in the UK, in a libel trial you will only be called
> upon to demonstrate that what you said was true on the balance of
> probabilities.

As I said, the actual conditions will depend on the jurisdiction.
But if not being a witness yourself and before court convicted someone,
I'd not suggest to tell the public some did something (but at most tell
them someone is accused of something (I do not know if the English
speaking press is over-using "alledged" as much as the German press is
sometimes over-using "mutmaßlich", but there is some importance in such
distinctions)).

Besides from that everyone has some right to control what is reported
about them, which routinely has to be balanced with the press' right
and public interests. Even reports about someone having been convicted
are here only allowed to be reported with the name of the convicted if
it is important enough and current (and then allowed to be stored in
public accessible archives, but only when it still was current and not
retroactively).

Bernhard R. Link

* Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> [101111 17:58]:
> Also I should point out that this entire subthread is a red herring.
>
> I am certainly not suggesting that conference organisers should post a
> public statement saying that Bob has been ejected from the conference
> for a sexual assault on Alice.
>
> I _am_ suggesting that if the conference organisers receive a
> complaint that Bob seriously sexually assaulted Alice, they should
> investigate. If on investigation they are sufficiently convinced that
> it's true, they should eject Bob.
>
> And they should tell the organisers of the next conference so that the
> next organisers can make an informed decision about whether Bob should
> be admitted, and if he is, will be able to deal competently with any
> further complaints made against Bob.
>
> If someone was stealing laptops surely there would surely be no doubt
> that the conference organisers would deal with it in this way.

I hope in most parts of the world, people would directly call the police
after having got the report and done some quick investigation if those
claims are not obviously false. Once the police was there and did not
take the alleged thief with them, organisers would have to decide if
they want the alledged thief still to stay or not.

Not mentioning the authorities first sounds in my eyes as if this is
handled like some trivial offence that is not worth being sanctioned
properly. (Or if free software developers are some honourable society
that does everything internally).

Bernhard R. Link

* Adrian Bunk <bunk(at)stusta(dot)de> [101111 19:40]:
> The level of proof required at court is not that extremely high, and
> if you don't reach that level of proof there's a high probability
> that the person is not guilty.

Almost every juristdiction has some "without reasonable doubt" in it.
Puting people into jail or requesting fines in something serious.
Telling someone "Sorry, but after what happened and while the
authorities said there is not enough proof, we do not want other
attendees having to fear you. Would you mind leaving/not coming?"
(and formulating that more decided if not followed voluntary) is
something that does not need as much proof.

Bernhard R. Link

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 09:33:23PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk <bunk(at)stusta(dot)de> [101111 19:40]:
> > The level of proof required at court is not that extremely high, and
> > if you don't reach that level of proof there's a high probability
> > that the person is not guilty.
>
> Almost every juristdiction has some "without reasonable doubt" in it.
> Puting people into jail or requesting fines in something serious.
> Telling someone "Sorry, but after what happened and while the
> authorities said there is not enough proof, we do not want other
> attendees having to fear you. Would you mind leaving/not coming?"
> (and formulating that more decided if not followed voluntary) is
> something that does not need as much proof.

I don't like this "we have no proof but think you are guilty" attitude
that has a high probability of also hitting innocent people.

And in the case of an unproven sexual assault you know that one of the
two persons is lying, but you don't know which. [1]
Which person do you want to kick out?
Both the alleged offender and the alleged victim?
Flip a coin?
The person the organiser likes less?

And how would you feel if a woman would wrongly accuse you of a sexual
assault, and even though the court says you are not guilty you would
get kicked out of all FOSS conferences and FOSS projects?

And to make it worse, what if your paid work depends on participating
in FOSS projects and conferences?

> Bernhard R. Link

cu
Adrian

[1] Think e.g. of the current Kachelmann rape trial where you know that
one of the persons is lying, but it is non-trivial to figure out
which side it is.

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 00:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 09:33:23PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > * Adrian Bunk <bunk(at)stusta(dot)de> [101111 19:40]:
> > > The level of proof required at court is not that extremely high, and
> > > if you don't reach that level of proof there's a high probability
> > > that the person is not guilty.
> >
> > Almost every juristdiction has some "without reasonable doubt" in it.
> > Puting people into jail or requesting fines in something serious.
> > Telling someone "Sorry, but after what happened and while the
> > authorities said there is not enough proof, we do not want other
> > attendees having to fear you. Would you mind leaving/not coming?"
> > (and formulating that more decided if not followed voluntary) is
> > something that does not need as much proof.

> I don't like this "we have no proof but think you are guilty" attitude
> that has a high probability of also hitting innocent people.
>

I think we need to leave this to law enforcement. Period.

JD
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt

* Adrian Bunk <bunk(at)stusta(dot)de> [101111 23:20]:
> > Almost every juristdiction has some "without reasonable doubt" in it.
> > Puting people into jail or requesting fines in something serious.
> > Telling someone "Sorry, but after what happened and while the
> > authorities said there is not enough proof, we do not want other
> > attendees having to fear you. Would you mind leaving/not coming?"
> > (and formulating that more decided if not followed voluntary) is
> > something that does not need as much proof.
>
> I don't like this "we have no proof but think you are guilty" attitude
> that has a high probability of also hitting innocent people.

Please, let's stay at the topic without insulting people.

> And in the case of an unproven sexual assault you know that one of the
> two persons is lying, but you don't know which.
> Which person do you want to kick out?

This is the important question. What you seem to forget, though, is that
you will force someone out. There is no way all of them will be able to
come together the same way before. You have to make some decision and no
decision is a decision, too.

> Both the alleged offender and the alleged victim?

That can in some situations be the best solution, too.

Note that allowing an alleged offender in whom most attendents
consider guilty (for example by having been witnesses or believing
the witnesses against the alleged more), will not only exclude the
victim but also all people fearing they could be next victim and
people not wanting to get into such a situation again (or the first
time).

> And how would you feel if a woman would wrongly accuse you of a sexual
> assault, and even though the court says you are not guilty you would
> get kicked out of all FOSS conferences

And how would you feel being the victim of some sexual assault and then
no longer being able to join any FOSS conference just because some court
had not enough witnesses or dropped something because of some formal
problem?

I guess a court decision that someone is not be guilty will often be a
good reason (unless there are more important opposing reasons) to allow
someone back in. The part to discuss is when the court says they cannot
say if someone is guilty without resonable doubt.

> and FOSS projects?

What are you talking about?

Bernhard R. Link

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 05:28:55PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk <bunk(at)stusta(dot)de> [101111 23:20]:
> > > Almost every juristdiction has some "without reasonable doubt" in it.
> > > Puting people into jail or requesting fines in something serious.
> > > Telling someone "Sorry, but after what happened and while the
> > > authorities said there is not enough proof, we do not want other
> > > attendees having to fear you. Would you mind leaving/not coming?"
> > > (and formulating that more decided if not followed voluntary) is
> > > something that does not need as much proof.
> >
> > I don't like this "we have no proof but think you are guilty" attitude
> > that has a high probability of also hitting innocent people.
>
> Please, let's stay at the topic without insulting people.

Sorry if it appears to you this way - it was not meant personally.

I am not a native English speaker, does it sound OK for you if I
replace "attitude" with "opinion"?

> > And in the case of an unproven sexual assault you know that one of the
> > two persons is lying, but you don't know which.
> > Which person do you want to kick out?
>
> This is the important question. What you seem to forget, though, is that
> you will force someone out. There is no way all of them will be able to
> come together the same way before. You have to make some decision and no
> decision is a decision, too.

In my opinion, the only sane option is to call the police.

> > Both the alleged offender and the alleged victim?
>
> That can in some situations be the best solution, too.
>
> Note that allowing an alleged offender in whom most attendents
> consider guilty (for example by having been witnesses or believing
> the witnesses against the alleged more), will not only exclude the
> victim but also all people fearing they could be next victim and
> people not wanting to get into such a situation again (or the first
> time).

That actually goes both ways:

Note that allowing an alleged victim whom many participants consider
guilty of lying to stay will exclude all people fearing to be the
next victim of a wrong accusation of this person.

And if I'm very cynical I'd go even further and say that there are
usually far less female people at a conference who would fear a sexual
assault by a man than male people who would fear a wrong accusation of
a woman. [1]

> > And how would you feel if a woman would wrongly accuse you of a sexual
> > assault, and even though the court says you are not guilty you would
> > get kicked out of all FOSS conferences
>
> And how would you feel being the victim of some sexual assault and then
> no longer being able to join any FOSS conference just because some court
> had not enough witnesses or dropped something because of some formal
> problem?

What is the best thing to do in this case?

German law says "acquittal at court is a proof that an accusation is
false" for defamation cases in criminal law. [2]

And that makes a lot of sense to me.

Sexual assault and rape cases are often hard to decide, and I see no
fairer way than following whatever the court decides.

> I guess a court decision that someone is not be guilty will often be a
> good reason (unless there are more important opposing reasons) to allow
> someone back in. The part to discuss is when the court says they cannot
> say if someone is guilty without resonable doubt.

Let's discuss this case you describe based on the incident that
triggered Ian's proposal.

When you read the reactions of other conference participants they often
boil down to:
"A respected member of our board, responsible for our conferences,
was sexually assaulted by a guy whose name I've barely heard before."

> > and FOSS projects?
>
> What are you talking about?

I'd asssume that e.g. a Debian developer found guilty of raping another
Debian developer at DebConf would be kicked out of Debian.

> Bernhard R. Link

cu
Adrian

[1] I want to emphasize that I am not suggesting to take this as a
guideline.
[2] http://bundesrecht.juris.de/stgb/__190.html

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

* Adrian Bunk <bunk(at)stusta(dot)de> [101112 21:36]:
> > > And in the case of an unproven sexual assault you know that one of the
> > > two persons is lying, but you don't know which.
> > > Which person do you want to kick out?
> >
> > This is the important question. What you seem to forget, though, is that
> > you will force someone out. There is no way all of them will be able to
> > come together the same way before. You have to make some decision and no
> > decision is a decision, too.
>
> In my opinion, the only sane option is to call the police.

As you will notice if you read what you replied to at the beginning
of this subthread, calling the police and making sure to collect all
the information needed for them is the first thing I want to see happen
in this situation.

But that still means you have to make a decision who is allowed to be
on the event. And as I said, even if you claim you are making no
decision, you are making one.

> > > Both the alleged offender and the alleged victim?
> >
> > That can in some situations be the best solution, too.
> >
> > Note that allowing an alleged offender in whom most attendents
> > consider guilty (for example by having been witnesses or believing
> > the witnesses against the alleged more), will not only exclude the
> > victim but also all people fearing they could be next victim and
> > people not wanting to get into such a situation again (or the first
> > time).
>
> That actually goes both ways:
>
> Note that allowing an alleged victim whom many participants consider
> guilty of lying to stay will exclude all people fearing to be the
> next victim of a wrong accusation of this person.

Yes. It's the same situation and you are forced to make a decision just
the same way.

> And if I'm very cynical I'd go even further and say that there are
> usually far less female people at a conference who would fear a sexual
> assault by a man than male people who would fear a wrong accusation of
> a woman.

Sorry, this is not cynical, this is bizarre. I as man would fear the
unpleasentness of having to witness any assault much more than fearing
any false accusation. So please do not try to speak in the name of men
here.

> German law says "acquittal at court is a proof that an accusation is
> false" for defamation cases in criminal law.

Note the "for defamation case" here. If there is not enough to convict
people and a court decided that way, they have a right to not be accused
publically. But that only means organisers should not make the needed
discussions in the public and nothing else.

> Sexual assault and rape cases are often hard to decide, and I see no
> fairer way than following whatever the court decides.

Then if someone is not admitted because of something like that, let them
sue before a court so the judge has a good laugh, too.

Bernhard R. Link