linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:55:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181009105550.GB20774@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181008195750.GA5367@localhost>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1138 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 12:57:51PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:23:57PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:

> > 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.

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to interpret the contributor
covenant in that sort of fashion - one of the consequences of the fact
that it does things people want like be explicit about exactly what
behaviours it's covering, specify consequences and so on is that it
looks a lot like how things that are intended to be some sort of legal
document look.  This is going to be especially true for non-native
speakers.  If it is causing problems that needs some clarification but
to be honest if people are erring on the side of taking the code of
conduct too seriously that doesn't seem like the worst thing ever.  

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

  reply	other threads:[~2018-10-09 10:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-06 21:35 [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes James Bottomley
2018-10-06 21:36 ` [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses James Bottomley
2018-10-07  8:25   ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-10-07 15:25     ` Shuah Khan
2018-10-07  9:04   ` Daniel Vetter
2018-10-07  9:54     ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-10-07 15:29     ` James Bottomley
2018-10-08 19:49       ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-07 17:53   ` Guenter Roeck
2018-10-07 22:25   ` Dave Airlie
2018-10-07 22:56     ` Al Viro
2018-10-07 23:02       ` Al Viro
2018-10-07 23:37       ` Dave Airlie
2018-10-08 10:14         ` Mark Brown
2018-10-08 19:32         ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-08 17:05       ` Luck, Tony
2018-10-08 14:08     ` James Bottomley
2018-10-10 16:36     ` Pavel Machek
2018-10-08 15:20   ` Josh Triplett
2018-10-08 15:30     ` James Bottomley
2018-10-08 19:23       ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-08 19:57         ` Josh Triplett
2018-10-09 10:55           ` Mark Brown [this message]
2018-10-09 18:29     ` Rainer Fiebig
2018-10-09 18:56       ` Josh Triplett
2018-10-09 19:38         ` Laurent Pinchart
2018-10-09 19:44           ` James Bottomley
2018-10-10  7:22             ` Rainer Fiebig
2018-10-10  5:52           ` Rainer Fiebig
2018-10-10  7:08         ` Rainer Fiebig
2018-10-08 19:24   ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-10 20:48   ` Frank Rowand
2018-10-06 21:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion James Bottomley
2018-10-06 21:43   ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Tim.Bird
2018-10-07  3:33     ` James Bottomley
2018-10-08 13:51       ` Tim.Bird
2018-10-08 14:09         ` James Bottomley
2018-10-08 17:58           ` Tim.Bird
2018-10-08 18:11             ` James Bottomley
2018-10-08 18:54               ` Tim.Bird
2018-10-08 15:03         ` jonsmirl
2018-10-08 15:37       ` Alan Cox
2018-10-11  7:42         ` Dan Carpenter
2018-10-07 15:32   ` Shuah Khan
2018-10-07 17:56   ` Guenter Roeck
2018-10-07 19:51   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-10-08 18:15   ` Chris Mason
2018-10-08 19:04     ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Josh Triplett
2018-10-08 20:23   ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-10 15:53     ` Alan Cox
2018-10-10 17:19       ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-10 20:09         ` Alan Cox
2018-10-10 20:30           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-07 17:11 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes Daniel Vetter
2018-10-07 17:40   ` James Bottomley
2018-10-07 17:50     ` jonsmirl
2018-10-07 17:52     ` Daniel Vetter
2018-10-10 16:12     ` Pavel Machek
2018-10-10 16:25       ` Randy Dunlap

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20181009105550.GB20774@sirena.org.uk \
    --to=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mchehab+samsung@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).