Benjamin Berg <> wrote:
> However, I don't think your response clearly answers my question. And I
> do think it is important to understand possible implications of Board
> decisions as they may directly affect community members who organise
> events.
> My current understanding of your response is, that the CoC committee
> holds the all of the above powers for all "GNOME events" (unless maybe
> an explicit exception has been made). Is that interpretation correct?

That's my understanding (but again, that's a purely formal reading - I
don't see it happening in practice).

> Does these mean that "Section V: Data retention" is purely a suggestion
> that events should adopt? As I understand it right now, the consequence
> would be that all "GNOME events" are free to adopt a data retention
> policy of their choosing.

Guidelines are a bit more than suggestions, in my view. That said,
it's true that these would probably be more binding if they were
hosted elsewhere.

There might be other data retention policies that apply; I'm not sure
about that.

> > That said, my view is that, if a hackfest organiser is aware of a
> > serious incident at their event, they ought to inform the Code of
> > Conduct Committee.
> There have been discussions in the past that this may trigger data
> protection and export regulations. Is there an official opinion on
> whether such regulations are relevant, and, if yes, whether small
> events may be expected to e.g. sign a contract with the Foundation to
> ensure such data exchange can happen legally.

I'm not aware of a requirement for small events to sign such
contracts. I haven't looked at these issues since we drafted the
Events Code of Conduct, and there has been movement in that area

foundation-list mailing list

Reply via email to