Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 16:28 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > Benjamin Berg wrote: > ... > > I fully understand that there is an interest for old comments and bug > > reports to remain available. I raised my concerns because it seemed > > like we have currently exactly one person who is barred from editing > > their Gitlab history, while everyone else can do so freely. > > There might be other users who have been blocked from using their > accounts, in response to bad behaviour... Sure, there might be more and there certainly will be eventually. But that does not affect the point I am making. > > > In the future, I think it would be good to have a policy in place for > > > situations like this. > > > > Is there a ticket to track the creation of such a policy? > > It might well fall under our privacy policy issue [1]. Yeah, it might be possible to address the issues raised in this thread there. I have added a note to the issue. Benjamin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
Benjamin Berg wrote: ... > I fully understand that there is an interest for old comments and bug > reports to remain available. I raised my concerns because it seemed > like we have currently exactly one person who is barred from editing > their Gitlab history, while everyone else can do so freely. There might be other users who have been blocked from using their accounts, in response to bad behaviour... > > In the future, I think it would be good to have a policy in place for > > situations like this. > > Is there a ticket to track the creation of such a policy? It might well fall under our privacy policy issue [1]. Allan -- [1] https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Board/issues/25 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 11:10 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > Benjamin Berg wrote: > ... > > I have neither gotten a response nor have I seen an indication that the > > Board is discussing the issue. Is the Board planning on responding to > > this request? > > Reading back over the thread, it's not entirely clear what the issue > is, so I'll just summarise what's happened: > > * A GitLab account was blocked due to inappropriate behaviour > * The user then sent the GitLab admin a request to remove the account > along with all posted comments > * The Board decided to anonymise the comments rather than delete > them, in order to preserve thread history > * When the admin went to delete the account, GitLab removed all the > comments too, so anonymization wasn't possible > > So we did fully comply with the request, albeit unintentionally. Right, I seem to have missed the information that the comments were deleted. I was under the impression that there is still activity from the user available on Gitlab at this point. > In this case, losing the comments wasn't a major issue since they > didn't have any value. However, if the user was a long-time > contributor, the situation would of course be different. I fully understand that there is an interest for old comments and bug reports to remain available. I raised my concerns because it seemed like we have currently exactly one person who is barred from editing their Gitlab history, while everyone else can do so freely. > In the future, I think it would be good to have a policy in place for > situations like this. Is there a ticket to track the creation of such a policy? > Does that help to clarify? Thanks for the reply, I do believe that this has clarified the matter a lot. Benjamin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
Benjamin Berg wrote: ... > I have neither gotten a response nor have I seen an indication that the > Board is discussing the issue. Is the Board planning on responding to > this request? Reading back over the thread, it's not entirely clear what the issue is, so I'll just summarise what's happened: * A GitLab account was blocked due to inappropriate behaviour * The user then sent the GitLab admin a request to remove the account along with all posted comments * The Board decided to anonymise the comments rather than delete them, in order to preserve thread history * When the admin went to delete the account, GitLab removed all the comments too, so anonymization wasn't possible So we did fully comply with the request, albeit unintentionally. In this case, losing the comments wasn't a major issue since they didn't have any value. However, if the user was a long-time contributor, the situation would of course be different. In the future, I think it would be good to have a policy in place for situations like this. Does that help to clarify? Allan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
Hi Board, On Sat, 2018-05-26 at 01:57 +0200, Benjamin Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:41 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: > > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Carlos Soriano > > wrote: > > > What is your goal exactly with this interrogatory? > > > > I guess he’s just trying to get an answer to his initial question, > > since you kept dodging it. > > Yes, it was the exact same question just slightly reworded. Probably > not great style my side, but I also found the way that an answer was > avoided rather off-putting. > > Now, back to the issue at hand. The user seems to have requested the > complete deletion of the account *including* all activity. AFAICT this > means that it is in the best interest of this user to delete everything > to the extend possible. > > It is also a fact, that the user could remove many of the strings that > they posted on Gitlab by replacing them with e.g. "deleted" if their > account was still usable. The sole reason they cannot do so is because > their account was first blocked and later deleted. > > Now, it appears that the fact that Gitlab allows users to edit their > comments was missed during the discussion by the Board. As such, the > Boards decision may need to be revisited under consideration of these > new facts. > > Could the Board please clarify whether the concerns raised here affect > the official decision? I have neither gotten a response nor have I seen an indication that the Board is discussing the issue. Is the Board planning on responding to this request? Benjamin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
> I don't know what these "comments" contribute to later understanding > of the development decisions. If hardly any, then there is no reason > to object to deleting them. If they are important, then we should > fight deleting them. Perhaps it is worth consulting a US lawyer > about whether GNOME has to fear a Canadian censorship law. Or an european lawyer whether or not having an option to delete user- generated content is necessary for fulfilling the GDPR (on the line of Art. 17) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > There is a good reason not to allow this: it would be sabotague of > project history. In a small case, it might be harmless, but if it's a > core developer, imagine the potential damage to GNOME if hundreds or > thousands of comments were to disappear from bug reports. I don't know what these "comments" contribute to later understanding of the development decisions. If hardly any, then there is no reason to object to deleting them. If they are important, then we should fight deleting them. Perhaps it is worth consulting a US lawyer about whether GNOME has to fear a Canadian censorship law. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 18:55 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Benjamin Berg > wrote: > > Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not make > > this offer in the future and in this case? > > > > Benjamin > > There is a good reason not to allow this: it would be sabotague of > project history. In a small case, it might be harmless, but if it's a > core developer, imagine the potential damage to GNOME if hundreds or > thousands of comments were to disappear from bug reports. That is a good point and a valid concern. The mentioned corner case is interesting and quite a clear indication that the Foundation/Project has a large interest to prevent in bulk modification of comments. > I hope GitLab has a time limit as to how far back posts can be edited, > to prevent this. Interesting, I doubt that such "archival" of posts is done though. If it is done, then I would say that the old precedence is fully applicable to such archived posts, and the rejection of requests is generally reasonable. Maybe one should discuss the idea of such a time limit with Gitlab? Benjamin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:41 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Carlos Soriano > wrote: > > What is your goal exactly with this interrogatory? > > I guess he’s just trying to get an answer to his initial question, > since you kept dodging it. Yes, it was the exact same question just slightly reworded. Probably not great style my side, but I also found the way that an answer was avoided rather off-putting. Now, back to the issue at hand. The user seems to have requested the complete deletion of the account *including* all activity. AFAICT this means that it is in the best interest of this user to delete everything to the extend possible. It is also a fact, that the user could remove many of the strings that they posted on Gitlab by replacing them with e.g. "deleted" if their account was still usable. The sole reason they cannot do so is because their account was first blocked and later deleted. Now, it appears that the fact that Gitlab allows users to edit their comments was missed during the discussion by the Board. As such, the Boards decision may need to be revisited under consideration of these new facts. Could the Board please clarify whether the concerns raised here affect the official decision? Benjamin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Benjamin Berg wrote: Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not make this offer in the future and in this case? Benjamin There is a good reason not to allow this: it would be sabotague of project history. In a small case, it might be harmless, but if it's a core developer, imagine the potential damage to GNOME if hundreds or thousands of comments were to disappear from bug reports. I hope GitLab has a time limit as to how far back posts can be edited, to prevent this. Michael ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Carlos Soriano wrote: > What is your goal exactly with this interrogatory? I guess he’s just trying to get an answer to his initial question, since you kept dodging it. -- Alexandre Franke GNOME Hacker & Foundation Director ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
What is your goal exactly with this interrogatory? In this case, the request was explicitly delete the account. The user sent a screenshot of the admin interface with the button selected of "delete account and activity" and didn't want anything else. On 25 May 2018 at 21:30, Benjamin Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:29 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > Depends on the case I guess? If I have to go over 1000 comments > > probably not. There could be other reasons, but I don't know yet > > because I didn't manage many cases yet. > > And in this particular case? > > Benjamin > > > On 25 May 2018 at 21:24, Benjamin Berg > > wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:20 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > > > Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this > > > offer? > > > > > > > > No, apart of the policy mentioned in the minutes. > > > > > > Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not > > > make > > > this offer in the future and in this case? > > > > > > Benjamin > > > > > > > On 25 May 2018 at 21:18, Benjamin Berg > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > > > > > Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because > > > > > that > > > > > > was not the request. The request was as described "account > > > > > deletion > > > > > > in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete > > > > > deletion, > > > > > > including any activity. > > > > > > > > > > This doesn't make any sense to me. The user has explicitly > > > > > requested a > > > > > full deletion including all comments. You have solely decided > > > that > > > > > the > > > > > comments would not be removed, but there was no decision on > > > whether > > > > > the > > > > > comment text needs to stay as is. > > > > > > > > > > As such, I would expect that you explicitly offer the user to > > > > > replace > > > > > all text in relevant posts. Have you done so, if not, is there > > > any > > > > > reason to not make this offer? > > > > > > > > > > Benjamin > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg, > > ions > > > > > .net > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > > > > > > > > * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked > > > user > > > > > > > (Carlos) > > > > > > > > * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of > > > this > > > > > > > > * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked > > > a > > > > > user > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no > > > > > longer > > > > > > > log in > > > > > > > > to edit/delete their comments. > > > > > > > > * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that > > > > > their > > > > > > > posts > > > > > > > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their > > > > > legal > > > > > > > right > > > > > > > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action. > > > > > > > > * Comments can only be deleted by an admin. > > > > > > > > * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that > > > are > > > > > > > stored on > > > > > > > > GNOME servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to > > > other > > > > > > > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be > > > > > > > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third > > > > > parties in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the > > > relevant > > > > > > > text > > > > > > > even if they cannot delete the comment itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like the request for deletion was completely > > > refused > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > than complying with it as much as possible by changing all > > > text > > > > > to > > > > > > > e.g. > > > > > > > "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not > > > complying > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > the request in this way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data > > > > > retention > > > > > > > > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required > > > for > > > > > > > > insurance purposes. > > > > > > > > * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise > > > > > posts > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo > > > - > > > > > isn't > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes. > > > > > > > > * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account > > > > > rather > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is > > > personally > > > > > in > > > > > > > favour > > > > > > > > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are. > > > > > > > > * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and > > > > > anonymise > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > posts i
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:29 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote: > Depends on the case I guess? If I have to go over 1000 comments > probably not. There could be other reasons, but I don't know yet > because I didn't manage many cases yet. And in this particular case? Benjamin > On 25 May 2018 at 21:24, Benjamin Berg > wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:20 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > > Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this > > offer? > > > > > > No, apart of the policy mentioned in the minutes. > > > > Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not > > make > > this offer in the future and in this case? > > > > Benjamin > > > > > On 25 May 2018 at 21:18, Benjamin Berg > > > > > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > > > > Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because > > > > that > > > > > was not the request. The request was as described "account > > > > deletion > > > > > in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete > > > > deletion, > > > > > including any activity. > > > > > > > > This doesn't make any sense to me. The user has explicitly > > > > requested a > > > > full deletion including all comments. You have solely decided > > that > > > > the > > > > comments would not be removed, but there was no decision on > > whether > > > > the > > > > comment text needs to stay as is. > > > > > > > > As such, I would expect that you explicitly offer the user to > > > > replace > > > > all text in relevant posts. Have you done so, if not, is there > > any > > > > reason to not make this offer? > > > > > > > > Benjamin > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg, > ions > > > > .net > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > > > > > > > * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked > > user > > > > > > (Carlos) > > > > > > > * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of > > this > > > > > > > * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked > > a > > > > user > > > > > > for > > > > > > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no > > > > longer > > > > > > log in > > > > > > > to edit/delete their comments. > > > > > > > * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that > > > > their > > > > > > posts > > > > > > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their > > > > legal > > > > > > right > > > > > > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action. > > > > > > > * Comments can only be deleted by an admin. > > > > > > > * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that > > are > > > > > > stored on > > > > > > > GNOME servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to > > other > > > > > > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be > > > > > > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third > > > > parties in > > > > > > the > > > > > > case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the > > relevant > > > > > > text > > > > > > even if they cannot delete the comment itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like the request for deletion was completely > > refused > > > > > > rather > > > > > > than complying with it as much as possible by changing all > > text > > > > to > > > > > > e.g. > > > > > > "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not > > complying > > > > > > with > > > > > > the request in this way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data > > > > retention > > > > > > > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required > > for > > > > > > > insurance purposes. > > > > > > > * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise > > > > posts > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo > > - > > > > isn't > > > > > > that > > > > > > > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes. > > > > > > > * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account > > > > rather > > > > > > than > > > > > > > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is > > personally > > > > in > > > > > > favour > > > > > > > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are. > > > > > > > * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and > > > > anonymise > > > > > > the > > > > > > > posts in the process. > > > > > > > > > > > > Benjamin___ > > > > > > foundation-list mailing list > > > > > > foundation-list@gnome.org > > > > > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > > > > > > > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
Depends on the case I guess? If I have to go over 1000 comments probably not. There could be other reasons, but I don't know yet because I didn't manage many cases yet. On 25 May 2018 at 21:24, Benjamin Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:20 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this offer? > > > > No, apart of the policy mentioned in the minutes. > > Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not make > this offer in the future and in this case? > > Benjamin > > > On 25 May 2018 at 21:18, Benjamin Berg > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > > > Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because > > > that > > > > was not the request. The request was as described "account > > > deletion > > > > in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete > > > deletion, > > > > including any activity. > > > > > > This doesn't make any sense to me. The user has explicitly > > > requested a > > > full deletion including all comments. You have solely decided that > > > the > > > comments would not be removed, but there was no decision on whether > > > the > > > comment text needs to stay as is. > > > > > > As such, I would expect that you explicitly offer the user to > > > replace > > > all text in relevant posts. Have you done so, if not, is there any > > > reason to not make this offer? > > > > > > Benjamin > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg, > > .net > > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > > > > > > * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user > > > > > (Carlos) > > > > > > * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this > > > > > > * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a > > > user > > > > > for > > > > > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no > > > longer > > > > > log in > > > > > > to edit/delete their comments. > > > > > > * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that > > > their > > > > > posts > > > > > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their > > > legal > > > > > right > > > > > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action. > > > > > > * Comments can only be deleted by an admin. > > > > > > * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are > > > > > stored on > > > > > > GNOME servers. > > > > > > > > > > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to other > > > > > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be > > > > > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third > > > parties in > > > > > the > > > > > case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the relevant > > > > > text > > > > > even if they cannot delete the comment itself. > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like the request for deletion was completely refused > > > > > rather > > > > > than complying with it as much as possible by changing all text > > > to > > > > > e.g. > > > > > "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not complying > > > > > with > > > > > the request in this way? > > > > > > > > > > > * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data > > > retention > > > > > > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for > > > > > > insurance purposes. > > > > > > * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise > > > posts > > > > > rather > > > > > > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo - > > > isn't > > > > > that > > > > > > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes. > > > > > > * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account > > > rather > > > > > than > > > > > > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally > > > in > > > > > favour > > > > > > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are. > > > > > > * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and > > > anonymise > > > > > the > > > > > > posts in the process. > > > > > > > > > > Benjamin___ > > > > > foundation-list mailing list > > > > > foundation-list@gnome.org > > > > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > > > > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:20 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote: > Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this offer? > > No, apart of the policy mentioned in the minutes. Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not make this offer in the future and in this case? Benjamin > On 25 May 2018 at 21:18, Benjamin Berg > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > > Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because > > that > > > was not the request. The request was as described "account > > deletion > > > in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete > > deletion, > > > including any activity. > > > > This doesn't make any sense to me. The user has explicitly > > requested a > > full deletion including all comments. You have solely decided that > > the > > comments would not be removed, but there was no decision on whether > > the > > comment text needs to stay as is. > > > > As such, I would expect that you explicitly offer the user to > > replace > > all text in relevant posts. Have you done so, if not, is there any > > reason to not make this offer? > > > > Benjamin > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg, > .net > > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > > > > > * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user > > > > (Carlos) > > > > > * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this > > > > > * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a > > user > > > > for > > > > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no > > longer > > > > log in > > > > > to edit/delete their comments. > > > > > * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that > > their > > > > posts > > > > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their > > legal > > > > right > > > > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action. > > > > > * Comments can only be deleted by an admin. > > > > > * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are > > > > stored on > > > > > GNOME servers. > > > > > > > > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to other > > > > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be > > > > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third > > parties in > > > > the > > > > case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the relevant > > > > text > > > > even if they cannot delete the comment itself. > > > > > > > > It sounds like the request for deletion was completely refused > > > > rather > > > > than complying with it as much as possible by changing all text > > to > > > > e.g. > > > > "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not complying > > > > with > > > > the request in this way? > > > > > > > > > * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data > > retention > > > > > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for > > > > > insurance purposes. > > > > > * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise > > posts > > > > rather > > > > > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo - > > isn't > > > > that > > > > > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes. > > > > > * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account > > rather > > > > than > > > > > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally > > in > > > > favour > > > > > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are. > > > > > * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and > > anonymise > > > > the > > > > > posts in the process. > > > > > > > > Benjamin___ > > > > foundation-list mailing list > > > > foundation-list@gnome.org > > > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this offer? No, apart of the policy mentioned in the minutes. On 25 May 2018 at 21:18, Benjamin Berg wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because that > > was not the request. The request was as described "account deletion > > in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete deletion, > > including any activity. > > This doesn't make any sense to me. The user has explicitly requested a > full deletion including all comments. You have solely decided that the > comments would not be removed, but there was no decision on whether the > comment text needs to stay as is. > > As such, I would expect that you explicitly offer the user to replace > all text in relevant posts. Have you done so, if not, is there any > reason to not make this offer? > > Benjamin > > > Cheers > > > > On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg, > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > > > > * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user > > > (Carlos) > > > > * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this > > > > * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user > > > for > > > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no longer > > > log in > > > > to edit/delete their comments. > > > > * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that their > > > posts > > > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their legal > > > right > > > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action. > > > > * Comments can only be deleted by an admin. > > > > * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are > > > stored on > > > > GNOME servers. > > > > > > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to other > > > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be > > > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third parties in > > > the > > > case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the relevant > > > text > > > even if they cannot delete the comment itself. > > > > > > It sounds like the request for deletion was completely refused > > > rather > > > than complying with it as much as possible by changing all text to > > > e.g. > > > "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not complying > > > with > > > the request in this way? > > > > > > > * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data retention > > > > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for > > > > insurance purposes. > > > > * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise posts > > > rather > > > > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo - isn't > > > that > > > > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes. > > > > * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account rather > > > than > > > > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally in > > > favour > > > > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are. > > > > * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and anonymise > > > the > > > > posts in the process. > > > > > > Benjamin___ > > > foundation-list mailing list > > > foundation-list@gnome.org > > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
Hi, On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote: > Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because that > was not the request. The request was as described "account deletion > in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete deletion, > including any activity. This doesn't make any sense to me. The user has explicitly requested a full deletion including all comments. You have solely decided that the comments would not be removed, but there was no decision on whether the comment text needs to stay as is. As such, I would expect that you explicitly offer the user to replace all text in relevant posts. Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this offer? Benjamin > Cheers > > On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg, > wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > > > * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user > > (Carlos) > > > * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this > > > * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user > > for > > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no longer > > log in > > > to edit/delete their comments. > > > * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that their > > posts > > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their legal > > right > > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action. > > > * Comments can only be deleted by an admin. > > > * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are > > stored on > > > GNOME servers. > > > > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to other > > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be > > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third parties in > > the > > case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the relevant > > text > > even if they cannot delete the comment itself. > > > > It sounds like the request for deletion was completely refused > > rather > > than complying with it as much as possible by changing all text to > > e.g. > > "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not complying > > with > > the request in this way? > > > > > * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data retention > > > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for > > > insurance purposes. > > > * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise posts > > rather > > > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo - isn't > > that > > > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes. > > > * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account rather > > than > > > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally in > > favour > > > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are. > > > * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and anonymise > > the > > > posts in the process. > > > > Benjamin___ > > foundation-list mailing list > > foundation-list@gnome.org > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
Hi all, Tobias, I'm not sure I would like to publicly post it here, as I don't think it's a good idea to target a specific user, even if it was blocked. In any case, unfortunately the GitLab UI tricked me in this one, and didn't move it to the "ghost user" as the board suggested, but rather deleted everything. Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because that was not the request. The request was as described "account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete deletion, including any activity. Cheers On Fri., 25 May 2018, 20:30 Benjamin Berg, wrote: > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > > * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user (Carlos) > > * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this > > * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user for > > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no longer log in > > to edit/delete their comments. > > * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that their posts > > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their legal right > > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action. > > * Comments can only be deleted by an admin. > > * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are stored on > > GNOME servers. > > There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to other > services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be > retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third parties in the > case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the relevant text > even if they cannot delete the comment itself. > > It sounds like the request for deletion was completely refused rather > than complying with it as much as possible by changing all text to e.g. > "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not complying with > the request in this way? > > > * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data retention > > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for > > insurance purposes. > > * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise posts rather > > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo - isn't that > > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes. > > * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account rather than > > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally in favour > > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are. > > * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and anonymise the > > posts in the process. > > Benjamin___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user (Carlos) > * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this > * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user for > inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no longer log in > to edit/delete their comments. > * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that their posts > be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their legal right > (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action. > * Comments can only be deleted by an admin. > * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are stored on > GNOME servers. There is a fundamental difference with Gitlab compared to other services though. On Gitlab comments and bug reports can be retrospectively modified by the submitter and even third parties in the case of bug descriptions. So the user could delete the relevant text even if they cannot delete the comment itself. It sounds like the request for deletion was completely refused rather than complying with it as much as possible by changing all text to e.g. "comment has been deleted". Is there a reason for not complying with the request in this way? > * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data retention > policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for > insurance purposes. > * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise posts rather > than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo - isn't that > what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes. > * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account rather than > deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally in favour > but doesn't know what the legal requirements are. > * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and anonymise the > posts in the process. Benjamin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
Hi, On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user (Carlos) > * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this > * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user for > inappropriate behaviour. Thanks for keeping our environment a little sane. Out of curiosity: Which bug is this about? > * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are stored on > GNOME servers. Sure. But we also have precedent for removing mails from archives ;-) And we do block access to certain bugzilla comments. FTR: I'm generally not a big fan of filtering information, but I appreciate that it's better in some cases to not publicly show certain things. Cheers, Tobi ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Minutes of the Foundation Board, 22nd May
= Foundation Board Minutes for Tuesday, May 22nd 2018, 18:00 UTC = Next meeting date Tuesday, May 29th 2018, 18:00 UTC == Attending == * AllanDay * MegFord (planned early departure) * DidierRoche * CarlosSoriano * NuritziSanchez * CosimoCecchi * NeilMcGovern (planned early departure) * RosannaYuen == Regrets == * AlexandreFranke == Missing == == Agenda == * LAS GNOME update (Nuritzi) * Request for account deletion in GitLab for blocked user (Carlos) * Permission for Rosanna to fly to and attend GUADEC (Nuritzi) * GUADEC 2019 (Allan) Deferred: * Engagement Committee (Nuritzi) * Vote for charter and propose members * https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Board/issues/16 == Minutes == Neil and Meg had left by this point in the meeting. * LAS GNOME update (Nuritzi) * LAS GNOME is getting up to speed again. Nuritzi has shared a proposal document and budget. * There's been an internal bidding process * The current plan is to have it in Denver, September 6-9th * There's already some funds for LAS GNOME, due to sponsorship packages that have already been agreed * It's projected to run at a profit * ACTION: board members to review the proposal document, with a view to vote at next week's meeting * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user (Carlos) * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user for inappropriate behaviour. This means that the user can no longer log in to edit/delete their comments. * The user has subsequently sent a mail demanding that their posts be deleted. The user has made the case that this is their legal right (under Canadian law) and has threatened legal action. * Comments can only be deleted by an admin. * We have a prescedent that we don't delete posts that are stored on GNOME servers. * Allan - why don't we delete posts? Rosanna - data retention policies are part of our staff handbook, and are required for insurance purposes. * Didier - on gnome-fr forums, they offer to anonymise posts rather than deleting them (in order to preserve threads). Cosimo - isn't that what happens when a user account is deleted? Yes. * Cosimo - prefers that people can remove their account rather than deleting posts. Didier agrees with this. Allan is personally in favour but doesn't know what the legal requirements are. * ACTION: Carlos to offer to delete the account and anonymise the posts in the process. * Permission for Rosanna to fly to and attend GUADEC (Nuritzi) * VOTE: approve Rosanna's travel to GUADEC 2018 * +1 unanimous * GUADEC 2019 (Allan) * https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Board/issues/51 * The call for bids was announced a while ago, and we haven't received any bids. * If the Foundation provided better support, people might be more willing to hold GUADEC. This is something we should look into. * Can we return to a previous venue? * Can we partner with another organisation? * ACTIONS: do another mail out to foundation-list, go through the list in the issue ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list