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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS 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 3C8B6C67863 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 19:30:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 519F32083A for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 19:22:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="jE6utnpo" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 519F32083A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com 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 S1727227AbeJSDYz (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2018 23:24:55 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f193.google.com ([209.85.210.193]:39532 "EHLO mail-pf1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727149AbeJSDYz (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2018 23:24:55 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f193.google.com with SMTP id c25-v6so15330889pfe.6 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:22:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=woz41Xzu1f/jy8w3DNip+IXlx5+BDBke5BHd5QllxIY=; b=jE6utnpoljimNZQlL/SDkQJby1w1aAolFfq0i2D19bK8Df5K8QvM6fAxrD2umUskPs 24wWa3NJ+FqEcWCiNwVVbT/ajKl+uMrSFNBfj0x3SSxqRJWdPwNx/XyQqmGIYk5edj/2 ux1CDNToWo5kjys0VHrKsYDu5WxlM02OlNH+HrPMXytwdLwx1hEzGYZuRnbLllnQzc8w cXM3wH5kaWdPkXQbM1HL2U+M01JRH8U3ZZLGXCMtPDx9dQVdCiSquO58okr5a3rWE2Z9 NZiZgk/xfFgoY/L0waQjnB/5wevsRk+iW3CSx0NEs93Bn4YbOrla1dfbNY3UJPKVl7qv QK5Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=woz41Xzu1f/jy8w3DNip+IXlx5+BDBke5BHd5QllxIY=; b=ulYgi1EfWPKzi/u08slR+LWK3p93/6JLFXJU+svdVqDT7o/5w0Oxj8Wvc4xX/3AVAo PgN+wRsa8mDqL7TzpB551i5THOs1yxIKfN39jNevGHhQ52gBvt2p7NEO36lrIPzQDO2k HTKCsjddE3ekEcQbToBxN4RIB8y2tvZ+PW/oFY/w56kk9g9duKOdoOplRzXUO2cORniu we1Gf5dIPUR3ZofEoOp7R05Fx4rmRdLMOIZxJzgHgA1laAXbJiWtPYQsRVxFxl6TUfIZ T/ZgC9owaYoL42/zwoVKpoNKs1pPzA2KcRvrHgBUOSg/VIc5XAtFyt3QVwX0nkBxpr1z NtVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojevxzO9ewcpIZkwvkvlk9joeqAeHFVbJhvNT0zvhYIiz61HC2B 4di9pMOhW4VcVHCOH4leIsJhhLgX X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62RNlolISZlMnKG9IA1T7Ftob0B7csAHSt2MSp22giUgR+AVJA6gfFMLUuft1OK+7UukQ41hQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:9809:: with SMTP id q9-v6mr11243806pgd.128.1539890547615; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.70] (c-24-6-192-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.6.192.50]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5-v6sm28124449pgt.83.2018.10.18.12.22.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v3 1/3] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses To: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Cc: linux-kernel References: <1539701820.2805.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1539701896.2805.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1539744091.2805.108.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <16a20416-0045-dfe6-d937-63f2f0cff269@gmail.com> <1539803331.3769.62.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1539874609.2845.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: Frank Rowand Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:22:25 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1539874609.2845.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote: > [...] >>>> Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what >>>> I intended to communicate, it seems to me that you are focused on >>>> the "where allowed" and I am focused on the "which email >>>> addresses". >>>> >>>> More clear? Or am I still not communicating well enough? >>> >>> I think the crux of the disagreement is that you think the carve >>> out equates to a permission which is not specific enough and I >>> think it >> >> Nope. That is a big place where I was not transferring my thoughts >> to clear communication. I agree that what I wrote should have been >> written in terms of carve out instead of permission. >> >> >>> doesn't equate to a permission at all, which is why there's no need >>> to make it more explicit. Is that a fair characterisation? >> >> Nope. My concern is "which email addresses". > > The idea here was because it's a carve out that doesn't give permission > and because the permission is ruled by the project contribution > documents, the carve out should be broad enough to cover anything they > might say hence "email addresses not ordinarily collected by the > project" are still included as unacceptable behaviour. > > Perhaps if you propose the wording you'd like to see it would help > because there still looks to be some subtlety I'm not getting. >From the beginning of the thread: > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > * Public or private harassment > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > - address, without explicit permission > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit permission > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a > professional setting Alternative (and I'm sure someone else can probably clean this up a little bit): + address that has been provided in a public space for the project, without explicit permission See you in Edinburgh, -Frank > > James > > > >