Project

General

Profile

Bug #6967

Write a Code of Conduct for Tails

Added by BitingBird almost 6 years ago. Updated about 5 years ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
High
Assignee:
-
Category:
-
Target version:
Start date:
03/22/2014
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Feature Branch:
contrib/CoC
Type of work:
End-user documentation
Blueprint:
Starter:
No
Affected tool:

Description

Tails is a growing project, and we need even more contributors. Having a clear inclusivity policy lets people know that they are welcome, and what behaviours are not welcome. It's particularly important because we're about to have our first public meeting in a few months.

How-to Code of Conduct:
http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct

Exemples with specifics do/dont:
https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/
https://github.com/mozilla/rust/wiki/Note-development-policy
http://alamw14.ala.org/statement-of-appropriate-conduct
http://code4lib.org/conference/2014/code_of_conduct

I set myself as assignee because I want to make this happen, and I'll propose something in the incoming days/weeks, but you're more than welcome to contribute with ressources, feedback etc

Associated revisions

Revision 2ca09f35
Added by Tails developers about 5 years ago

Merge branch 'contrib/CoC' (Closes: #6967)

History

#1 Updated by BitingBird almost 6 years ago

  • Subject changed from Redact a Code of Conduct for Tails to Write a Code of Conduct for Tails

#2 Updated by BitingBird almost 6 years ago

  • Category deleted (Accessibility)

#3 Updated by BitingBird almost 6 years ago

  • Priority changed from Normal to High
  • Target version deleted (Hole in the Roof)

replacing milestone by high priority.

#5 Updated by sajolida over 5 years ago

Thanks for taking over that important initiative.

Many of the links you provided are primarily targeted at conferences. Do you plan to work on a document only for our physical meetings, or with a broader scope, or maybe two different documents?

#6 Updated by BitingBird over 5 years ago

T though making a CoC for both physical and non-physical interractions, but intri started working on a anti-harrassment policy for the hackfest - they might be complementary.

#7 Updated by sajolida over 5 years ago

T though making a CoC for both physical and non-physical interractions, but intri started working on a anti-harrassment policy for the hackfest - they might be complementary.

I really like the CoC that has been drafted based on the one from Django
and I think it applies to both online and offline interactions. Apart for:

« - Recording, photographing or filming other persons without their
consent. Seek consent before recording. Also ask people who may be
seen or heard in the background. »

An online equivalent could be not to forward private conversations
publicly without consent.

« If you believe someone is violating this policy, we ask that you
report it by contacting the emergency response team: [XXX: who, where,
how]. »

But we could have a different contact information for online interactions.

#8 Updated by intrigeri over 5 years ago

I really like the CoC that has been drafted based on the one from Django
and I think it applies to both online and offline interactions.
Apart for: [...]

The original text was better suited for online interactions. I believe that the shortest path to getting this back would be to partially revert commit 9b29a8c (in internal Git repo).

#9 Updated by sajolida over 5 years ago

The original text was better suited for online interactions. I
believe that the shortest path to getting this back would be to
partially revert commit 9b29a8c (in internal Git repo).

Apart from the contact address and the definition of the context ("This
policy is meant for the Tails HackFest") I couldn't find any changes in
that commit that are making it less suited for online use. For example,
the change of "post" into "exhibiting" and "publishing" makes it more
generic and is good anyway.

So I propose that we review it after the hackfest and discuss its
adoption as a global code of conduct.

#11 Updated by sajolida over 5 years ago

  • Target version set to Sustainability_M1

#12 Updated by BitingBird over 5 years ago

  • Type of work changed from Communicate to Discuss

It could be discussed to adopt the hackfest'policy as a CoC as-is.

#13 Updated by intrigeri over 5 years ago

BitingBird wrote:

It could be discussed to adopt the hackfest'policy as a CoC as-is.

Care to start the discussion on -project@?

#14 Updated by BitingBird over 5 years ago

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress

Mail sent to -project.

#15 Updated by sajolida over 5 years ago

  • Type of work changed from Discuss to Documentation

Discussed during September 2014 online meeting: https://tails.boum.org/contribute/meetings/201409/

#16 Updated by BitingBird about 5 years ago

  • Assignee changed from BitingBird to sajolida
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA
  • Feature Branch set to bitingbird:contrib/CoC

Finally done as decided in the meeting and on the mailing-list.

#17 Updated by BitingBird about 5 years ago

  • Target version changed from Sustainability_M1 to Tails_1.3

#18 Updated by intrigeri about 5 years ago

  • Feature Branch changed from bitingbird:contrib/CoC to contrib/CoC

Rebased on master.

#19 Updated by cnd about 5 years ago

BitingBird wrote:

what behaviours are not welcome...

Everything about Tails flies in the face of the purpose of NSA, GCHQ, ASD, CSEC, and GCSB (aka 5-eyes), not to mention the 100+ foreign agencies tasked with the same job. America alone has 55,000+ of the nations smartest geeks spending more than $50,000,000,000 per year to "watch you".

The one thing you can be absolutely certain about, is that one or more of your "contributors" works for these guys, and has more money than you do to spend on this, and if they're not smarter than you, they certainly have access to hundreds of experts who are.

There should be NO "Code of Conduct" for Tails. It will instill an absolutely false sense of "security" into people, which by the nature of your product is impossible to attain for as long as more than 1 person is involved.

Bad people do not follow rules, nor do government agencies (or worse; they've got their own rules permitting them to not follow ours).

Better to spend your energy on ways to hamper subversion and evil, than wasting time asking people (who don't listen) not to.

Here's a fun 5-minute hack that will show you some of the places where your security has already been subverted: as you know, all security relies on strong random numbers. As you possibly don't know, some "random" is in fact "pseudorandom" (looks random, but it's really a repeatable sequence based on the starting key, known as a "seed"). So, in a fully secure product, do you think it could ever be reasonable for anything to "seed" the random pool, so as to generate predictable fake random numbers? IMHO: hell no! So, do this - put some warning statements into all the random seed code in Tails, re-build, and watch in horror as you see all your favorite tools generating predicable numbers, instead of real random ones. Oops! Or even better - hack the random code so it always returns random, irrespective of seeds etc, and watch all the build tests fail. (and have fun trying to explain why it's so important that the products you're shipping need to know that their predictable pseudorandom generators are all functioning... predictably...)

#20 Updated by intrigeri about 5 years ago

There should be NO "Code of Conduct" for Tails. It will instill an absolutely false sense of "security" into people, which by the nature of your product is impossible to attain for as long as more than 1 person is involved.

The purpose of having a CoC for Tails is not to improve security.

#21 Updated by Tails about 5 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100

Applied in changeset commit:35cd6721c09c41555d2abbc6fc073eda13a0a740.

#22 Updated by sajolida about 5 years ago

  • Assignee deleted (sajolida)
  • % Done changed from 100 to 0
  • QA Check deleted (Ready for QA)

Merged after a few minor changes. I moved this under contribute/working_together.

Also available in: Atom PDF