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 4EC157C75 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:58:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay1-d.mail.gandi.net (relay1-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A87E7806 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:58:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 12:57:51 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Message-ID: <20181008195750.GA5367@localhost> References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1538861799.4088.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181008152043.GA5796@localhost> <1539012620.4344.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181008162357.7004ba48@coco.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20181008162357.7004ba48@coco.lan> Cc: James Bottomley , linux-kernel , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org 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: , On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:23:57PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > 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: > > > > 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.) > > > > 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. Linking to a FAQ with useful clarifications in it doesn't make those "binding". This is *not* a legal agreement.