Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses

From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ksummit <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:14:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181008101455.GC5684@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPM=9tzU_wy77j=sx9u9gFsJp-M4ktH7hLQE5=_wKbow9p+iuQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 892 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:37:59AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> > We can surround it with "explanations" until we get something that more or
> > less fits, but then we'd need to reanalyse them every time an upstream
> > change gets merged.  And the lack of textual conflicts is not a good thing
> > in such situations, obviously.

> We do this already for the GPL (hence the GPLv2 only, and syscall exceptions).

That works reasonably well for licenses because people reading licenses
tend to do so in a rather detail oriented fashion so it's not that big
an obstacle to have something that's a bit harder to follow.  It's not
clear to me that the same thing is going to apply to people reading
codes of conduct, especially those looking for reassurance from them.
It might be OK but it's probably worth thinking about.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]