From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3627CCA for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 19:39:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 918DC4DA for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 19:38:59 +0000 (UTC) From: Laurent Pinchart To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 22:38:57 +0300 Message-ID: <1877914.JXSoZ9jg4d@avalon> In-Reply-To: <20181009185622.GA20960@localhost> References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1718828.OxLgMoHbrt@siriux> <20181009185622.GA20960@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rainer Fiebig Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Josh, On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 21:56:23 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: > > Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > >> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > >>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers > >>> publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable > >>> behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email > >>> addresses as part of the patch process, add an exception clause for > >>> email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > >>> ambiguity. > >> > >> Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > >> questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > >> > >> Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? > >> (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > > > > The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. > > The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a > > FAQ. Hm. > > Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was > previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a common > understanding. I see an elephant in the room in the fact that we have carefully avoided discussing whether people share a common goal here :-/ -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB35FC64EB0 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 19:39:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74AA7214C4 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 19:39:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="ExKJETKY" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 74AA7214C4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727729AbeJJC53 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Oct 2018 22:57:29 -0400 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com ([213.167.242.64]:37464 "EHLO perceval.ideasonboard.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726608AbeJJC53 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Oct 2018 22:57:29 -0400 Received: from avalon.localnet (dfj612ybrt5fhg77mgycy-3.rev.dnainternet.fi [IPv6:2001:14ba:21f5:5b00:2e86:4862:ef6a:2804]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1F3136F8; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 21:38:57 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1539113937; bh=2+pe5ukg8mo3BH0sHqB2EodCd03IrAi50qSKZTjs/6U=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ExKJETKYUBuWpPVIShomt06vtIvPSYzIQYyYpqIMHppotdveNY+slx6s/1Zwehh+C oyLj/8YwYQ6GHdOhbXT8u4apekZDC2UdkmBXliCj70HyQz2d3LgQb09V5YjWn+PyDl GOdJxHwanjQ/sQV4cHZxzWNBwA3w3mA/HlgulKGk= From: Laurent Pinchart To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Cc: Josh Triplett , Rainer Fiebig , james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 22:38:57 +0300 Message-ID: <1877914.JXSoZ9jg4d@avalon> Organization: Ideas on Board Oy In-Reply-To: <20181009185622.GA20960@localhost> References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1718828.OxLgMoHbrt@siriux> <20181009185622.GA20960@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Josh, On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 21:56:23 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: > > Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > >> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > >>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers > >>> publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable > >>> behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email > >>> addresses as part of the patch process, add an exception clause for > >>> email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > >>> ambiguity. > >> > >> Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > >> questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > >> > >> Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? > >> (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > > > > The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. > > The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a > > FAQ. Hm. > > Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was > previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a common > understanding. I see an elephant in the room in the fact that we have carefully avoided discussing whether people share a common goal here :-/ -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart