LHC@home

(Commentary in parenthesis)



Participant's Rights and Responsibilities



Article I



Right: The participant has the right to pose a question, answer a question, make a statement, or express an opinion without fear of retribution by the Something@Home Project. Expression of an opinion unfavorable to the Something@Home Project shall not be considered grounds for moderator action. Posts shall not be altered in a way that substantially alters the sense or meaning of the post.



Responsibility: Freedom of speech carries with it the obligation to use the opportunity responsibly. The language used in posts should at all times be appropriate to a board accessed and read by all ages. The participant shall not regularly, or repeatedly, abuse this right by posts that are identified as objectionable by the Something@Home Project or the BOINC Community. The participant does not have the right to expect an individual answer from the project team; there are simply too many participants. The primary avenue for participant/project communication will be the Message Boards emails to the project team members are too much of a time waster and are to be used only in the last resort.



Benefits: Free exchange of information and opinions. Allowing "venting" releases frustration. Projects will save time dealing with one reasonable mediator rather than several disgruntled participants. E-mail support can become more limited as it should be restricted to the most important issues.



(

The perceived intent of the forums is that this is a place where the participants can come and socialize, exchange information, and learn. For the most part the exchanges are relatively well controlled but it has to be accepted that the possibility exists that the participant's view of the project may not be the same as the project team's. Wise team members, of course, will see these dissenting views as keys to possible improvements, others will simply suppress the "incorrect" view. The main point though, is that you cannot accuse a participant of "crossing the line" in a discussion thread if "the line" has not been drawn beforehand.



An example of an exchange of views where the project team and the participant did not "jive" occurred on Rosetta@Home where the issue of (sorry Jack) random number generators was discussed. The point being that though we did hold very different views of the matter, the discussion was cordial, potentially fruitful (at least I gave them something to think about), and though my opinion was mildly controversial was allowed to remain visible and open for discussion.



On the other hand, there are limits of decency. To a great extent these are adhered to fairly well but, imposition of moderation and temperance is not censorship. Use of foul or abusive words and phrases is unnecessary and usually gratuitous. Attacks on team members or other participants personalities, habits, morals, beliefs, etc. are, or at least should be, obviously out of bounds. Expressed ideas are fair game to discuss, but not to denigrate, ridicule, or disparage the person holding that idea or belief.



The participants do have a right to reasonable information. If over 20 participants and 75% of voters make a post clearly calling for more information from the project team then the project team should respond promptly. This can take the form of explaining why the questions are not being answered. If such an explanation continues to fail to satisfy the questioners then mediation might be required. The right to an answer does not imply that the answer is going to be to your liking.



It must be expected that if an answer is not given it must be expected by the project team that after a reasonable interval (20-30 days?) that the question may arise again.

Project teams, by definition, include the volunteer moderators. An answer by one of them does constitute an "official" answer unless specifically repudiated by the project team.



E-mail requests, unless they are appropriate for this avenue can be ignored by the project team.

)



Article II



Right: The participant has a right to a disclosure of the requirements of the Something@Home Project's software and a complete list of known or suspected issues with periodic updates of the status of these issues.



Responsibility: The participant has the responsibility to report issues to the Something@Home Project with as complete information as possible, in a nonjudgmental, non-accusatory way. The participant also has to accept that solving problems does take information, time, and effort.



Benefits: An informed participant has a lower probability of becoming disgruntled. Once published the project can say "we told you so ..."



(

Not all projects are compatible with the capabilities and limitations of all participants physical configuration. So that this may be fully explored and understood these limitations must disclosed and the participants must be allowed to openly discuss these issues. This also must include the discussion of the project's action or lack of action on the problems. Most projects get this right, or mostly right, most of the time. In my experience the best examples are CPDN, Einstein@Home, and Rosetta@Home (alpha order).



Again, using Rosetta@Home as an example of doing it "right" we have the situation with the "stuck at 1%" bug. The bug was acknowledged, mechanisms for tracking incidences created, a work around and diagnostics were developed and updates of the status have been regularly given. Even more importantly the project has publicly acknowledged that this issue may make the project unsuitable for some participants at this time. Because of this openness I feel that the project has reaped enormous good-will on the part of the majority of the participant population (that cares at least) and has thus remained high on my personal recommendation list of projects in which to participate (disclaimer/note: my allocation of resources to projects other than Rosetta@Home has been for reasons other than the operational issues and I will be returning). Best of all has been the feedback on things that have been tried.



That these problems are severe is undeniable and therefore has generated some angst and heat. But, recognizing that this level of emotion is created by the frustration of the participants they have allowed its expression and have recommended that other projects be used in the mean time as a stop-gap until the issues can be resolved. All-in-all, I believe, a win-win for the BOINC Community and the project.

)



Article III



Right: The participant has the right to a fair, accurate, and equitable assignment of their reward for participation in the Something@Home Project and that the project will act as a fair and honest broker of this process. The Something@Home project shall not reduce awards without clear proof that the work was not performed or the award was not legitimately earned. The participant has the right to the expectation that the project team will make all reasonable efforts to make the credit awards an accurate reflection of computing work done for the project, and that these awards are made in a way that is compatible with the cross-project nature of BOINC.



Responsibility: The participant has the obligation to abide by the stipulations of the Rules and Policies and to perform their work only on those computers for which they have permission. The participant must not create fraudulent claims by any means as those fraudulent claims and subsequent awards are not protected by this article.



Benefits: There are many issues that invoke passion, but this has to be one of the biggest. ANYTHING we do to try to lower that HAS to be a good idea.



(

Credit is the participant's "badge of honor" and tampering with it is the height of lunacy (in my opinion). Though many disparage its importance, its importance and attraction cannot be denied and therefore its sanctity should also receive a very high recognized level of importance.

)



Article IV



Right: The participant has the right to feel secure in the protection of their personal information by the Something@Home Project and that the project shall not alter this information or identity without just cause and shall provide notification of any such adverse action. Deliberate or accidental revelations shall be corrected as quickly as possible.



Responsibility: The participants have the responsibility to recognize the sanctity and dignity of other participants and to respect their desire for the security of their personal information and to protect it as they would their own.



Benefits: Cornered and frightened people are never good publicity. Participants that feel secure with your project are far more likely to recommend the project to others. Besides, it is it right thing to do.



(

Though the projects do state that they intend to protect the data under their control they do not extend this to inadvertent release by others within their domain. The fact that to this point all projects have reacted well to all incidents, the point is that they have announced no intent or obligation to do so. Further as stated previously, redress by one project does not eliminate the vulnerability if another project fails to redress the violation.

)



Article V



Right: The participant shall enjoy the presumption of innocence, the right to a speedy resolution, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation by the project team; to be informed of the evidence, and to have an independent mediator. Likewise, the project has the same reciprocal right to request mediation with the additional right to combine similar grievances into one action.



Responsibility: To accept that until resolution of a situation that some other rights may be temporarily suspended, for example the "masking" of offensive posts, until the situation is resolved. The right to mediation implies the acceptance of the finality of the mediation. Abuse of the mediation process by a participant lodging "frivolous" requests can result in the loss of the privilege for all projects in the BOINC Community, choose wisely.



Benefits: People that believe that they can get an independent look are more likely to accept an adverse action.



(

How can a participant know that they doing something the project deems as wrong if they fail to inform them of the issue before they "cross the line" by either explicitly "drawing" said line in a published policy or by public or private communication that the current behavior is believed unacceptable. And, the current norm throughout most of the world is a belief that actions by those with power, particularly those actions that might be construed as negative, should not occur in secrecy.



My good/bad example here is LHC@Home. They have a published policy outlining some instances where project action will occur (good). However, they also state that these actions will be done without notification (bad). In my opinion the policy has simply not been updated to reflect the later generation of software where the capability exists for automatic notification (good).



And, if the independent mediator says you are wrong, you are wrong and you have to live with that, participant and project alike. But, there is the requirement that the mediation be truly fair and unbiased. If the mediator from project "A" always accepts the stance that the projects could not possibly be wrong, then the whole point of mediation is lost as it is no longer non-partisan. This being said, because the participants outnumber the projects by a considerable number the likelihood is that the participants will "lose" more often than "win", but, if the perception is correct that the proceedings are basically fair than this should be acceptable. I am not sure if an appeal process is needed, but if so the only way that would work is if there was also participants involved somehow. Perhaps an agreed upon list candidates proposed by the participant community, rejection by project managers of those felt not totally neutral (probably ensure *I* never show up on the list :)).



)



Article VI



Right: The enumeration of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the participant. The enumeration of a right does not overrule the need for common sense.



Responsibility: The allowance of rights may be limited by the Something@Home Project's contractual or legal obligations and the participant must respect those limitations as natural and allowable. The enumeration of certain responsibilities shall not be construed to limit the participant to only those so defined. To accept common sense answers when they are appropriate.



Benefits: Announcing that common sense will be used sets bounds on how silly a participant can get before it is clear that they are out of bounds. It reinforces the idea that there are limits.



(

Any questions? This seems clear enough. Common sense should be common and applied as needed.

)



Please do not post replies to this topic, post your questions and discussions on the companion thread: Participant's Rights and Responsibilities - Discussion

---