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

From: Rainer Fiebig <jrf@mailbox.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
	ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:22:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c0e807a6-52b4-d655-9b13-805af5cdc85e@mailbox.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1539114254.4876.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com>

James Bottomley schrieb:
> On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 22:38 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> Hi Josh,
>>
>> On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 21:56:23 EEST Josh Triplett wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote:
>>>> Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett:
>>>>> 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.)
>>>>
>>>> The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading.
>>>> The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it
>>>> needs a FAQ. Hm.
>>>
>>> Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was
>>> previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a
>>> common understanding.
>>
>> I see an elephant in the room in the fact that we have carefully
>> avoided  discussing whether people share a common goal here :-/
> 
> We don't need to share a common goal; we just need to find the
It wouldn't hurt to have one and mention it either.

> document useful on its merits.  That's why we're a mostly GPLv2
> project without signing up to most of the FSF philosophy.  However,
> that's also why we would keep our own interpretations, understandings
> and clarifications in house, as it were.
> 
> James
> 
Sure.

So long!

Rainer Fiebig