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=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no 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 F0BE1C433B4 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89CC661029 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:44:04 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 89CC661029 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:33936 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lWHSc-0002bK-NJ for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 07:44:03 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39560) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lWHQj-0000jV-2u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 07:42:05 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:34901) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lWHQh-0007W2-CL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 07:42:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1618314122; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TiEJ92VeFsqiMQibPS6Li/FQkMc6zRkpPjI/oMXdrnA=; b=MFB8wMsFJPLZTzIRPn+mAvFvjjDETTMghl6asTrtgKtR5zvk3Nba01ZTpjK8R7+Ofx7L1d I1CKBj3lLr0+sU7h7o+pYZ7khEHFqtljLO9bQ685aSp45gDgx97O5YjX+fu6rVxq3t1m94 krLYxcTqmNFi5MK8+0iQZ4FgO97ggOM= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-82-61ME-SeSN5iz4NTLZlYFBA-1; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 07:41:58 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 61ME-SeSN5iz4NTLZlYFBA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E5B66D241; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:41:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-114-17.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.17]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BB825D720; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:41:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 51E36113525D; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 13:41:51 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Peter Maydell Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Add a QEMU Code of Conduct and Conflict Resolution Policy document References: <20210331150527.14857-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <87wnteus7k.fsf@linaro.org> <007fd217-c660-1f7d-835a-07a309d24d8c@suse.de> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 13:41:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Peter Maydell's message of "Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:24:54 +0100") Message-ID: <87fszuwgw0.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=armbru@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Kevin Wolf , Thomas Huth , "Daniel P. Berrange" , QEMU Developers , Alexander Graf , Stefan Hajnoczi , Paolo Bonzini , Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= , Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Peter Maydell writes: > On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 11:23, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrot= e: >> Or consider the case you get a bug report not copied to the public >> mailing lists from someone you don't know. Then I would still expect to >> be allowed to attribute a commit via Reported-by/CC to that person, as >> it seems in his/her interest to get the bug fixed and be notified, >> unless explicitly requested otherwise. > > FWIW, in this kind of situation, I generally try to explicitly > ask the submitter if they're OK with my adding a reported-by > tag, just as a matter of politeness. Not everybody is OK with > having their email address publicly recorded on mailing list > archives and in git history forever. That's what I'd do, too. Still, neglecting to ask for permission to publicly credit a bug report is not anywhere near doxing. If the public credit turns out to be unwanted, a sincere apology is obviously called for. People may exist who need to be slapped over the head with a code of conduct to figure that out. I hope we'll never need to do that. Anyway. What I see at work here is one of the unintended consequences of formal codes of conduct: they read like law, so people read them lawyerly. Our CoC attempts to avoid this by explicitly stating its *purpose*: "a guide to make it easier to be excellent to each other." This applies to the QEMU leadership committee in spades. Treating negligent publication of some technical e-mail's sender address as malicious doxing wouldn't be excellent to anyone, it would be the leadership committee shooting themselves into the foot with a machine gun". Let's not worry about that, okay?