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 4472D7B0C for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:24:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D13D96C5 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:24:03 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 16:23:57 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20181008162357.7004ba48@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: <1539012620.4344.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1538861799.4088.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181008152043.GA5796@localhost> <1539012620.4344.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel 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: , Em Mon, 08 Oct 2018 08:30:20 -0700 James Bottomley escreveu: > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:20 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: =20 > > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers > > > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable > > > behaviour.=C2=A0=C2=A0Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes e= mail > > > addresses as part of the patch process, add an exception clause for > > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > > ambiguity. =20 > >=20 > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > >=20 > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) =20 >=20 > We can debate that as part of everything else, but my personal opinion > would be we should never point to an outside document under someone > else's control for guidance as to how our community would enforce its > own code of conduct. Fully agreed on that. The same argument that we use for GPL 2 only applies here: we should stick with an specific version of this it, in a way that we won't be automatically bound to whatever new version of it would say. Btw, the term "social contract" is there at the FAQ. At least in Brazil, as far as I can tell, there's no distinction of a "social contract" and a "contract". From what I understand, both will have equal legal value. Thanks, Mauro 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_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, 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 827C9C65C20 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:24:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ACEF2145D for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:24:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="QEQCUWg+" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2ACEF2145D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org 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 S1726565AbeJIChU (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:37:20 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:59002 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726442AbeJIChU (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:37:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To: From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=snJoplR6JThjVb49dH/rz/cj9gqwHmyjtsCdxCwnUkw=; b=QEQCUWg+JaIxpNmSNfEid/kB2 u8mDSySWaauzERSddBOQiNNaVIDgim30DCUFPzmuAAcAQb5/05FrKpuwU9GWQojb7NbkLtWv1C+CK PmozWm4i/tVhJBJkp5PaM0EHngMx8vJccrIcLzSYJqtyeQ7Mu6c88W9kz+/ecZbpq9w4eSy1iAOxV A4fsAVpaEMAwKW2bEzEz3cvZK3hJtAEaurdQtebf4hNOdd1Pyl0kCYwI/sGj08VUBFoytnO6qwmTP R+Vozuqs99Dg3VzK4l3aiEPNr6dgQaUMvZy98ivgTpK685RYKHSOYnqLaflVpgxRAKhRbOPAmV10s rv/GJH90Q==; Received: from [179.183.98.126] (helo=coco.lan) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1g9b8K-0006zr-TT; Mon, 08 Oct 2018 19:24:01 +0000 Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 16:23:57 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: James Bottomley Cc: Josh Triplett , linux-kernel , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses Message-ID: <20181008162357.7004ba48@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: <1539012620.4344.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1538861799.4088.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181008152043.GA5796@localhost> <1539012620.4344.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Mon, 08 Oct 2018 08:30:20 -0700 James Bottomley escreveu: > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:20 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: =20 > > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers > > > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable > > > behaviour.=C2=A0=C2=A0Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes e= mail > > > addresses as part of the patch process, add an exception clause for > > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > > ambiguity. =20 > >=20 > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > >=20 > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) =20 >=20 > We can debate that as part of everything else, but my personal opinion > would be we should never point to an outside document under someone > else's control for guidance as to how our community would enforce its > own code of conduct. Fully agreed on that. The same argument that we use for GPL 2 only applies here: we should stick with an specific version of this it, in a way that we won't be automatically bound to whatever new version of it would say. Btw, the term "social contract" is there at the FAQ. At least in Brazil, as far as I can tell, there's no distinction of a "social contract" and a "contract". From what I understand, both will have equal legal value. Thanks, Mauro