linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
	ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v3 1/3] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:10:39 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e332116b-62e8-9930-c263-d022edb5828e@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1539701896.2805.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com>

On 10/16/18 07:58, 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.
> 
> Fixes: 8a104f8b5867c682 ("Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.")
> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> Acked-by: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@llwyncelyn.cymru>
> Reviewed-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> @@ -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
>  
> 

Repeating my comment on version 1:

My understanding of the concern behind this change is that we should be
able to use an email address for the current development practices, such
as Reported-by, Suggested-by, etc tags when the email address was
provided in what is a public space for the project.  The public space
is visible to anyone in the world who desires to access it.

I do not understand how "ordinarily collected by the project" is equivalent
to "an email address that was provided in a public space for the project".
Ordinarily collected could include activities that can be expected to be
private and not visible to any arbitrary person in the world.

My issue is with the word choice.  I agree with the underlying concept.

-Frank

  reply	other threads:[~2018-10-17  2:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-16 14:57 [PATCH v3 0/3] code of conduct fixes James Bottomley
2018-10-16 14:58 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses James Bottomley
2018-10-17  2:10   ` Frank Rowand [this message]
2018-10-17  2:41     ` [Ksummit-discuss] " James Bottomley
2018-10-17 18:49       ` Frank Rowand
2018-10-17 19:07         ` Randy Dunlap
2018-10-17 19:08         ` James Bottomley
2018-10-17 19:53           ` Frank Rowand
2018-10-18 14:56             ` James Bottomley
2018-10-18 19:22               ` Frank Rowand
2018-10-18 19:49                 ` Tim.Bird
2018-10-18 19:57                   ` James Bottomley
2018-10-18 23:07                     ` Frank Rowand
2018-10-17 19:26         ` Alexandre Belloni
2018-10-20 18:11   ` Michael Tirado
2018-10-16 14:59 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion James Bottomley
2018-10-16 15:00 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] code-of-conduct: Add back the TAB as the central reporting point James Bottomley
2018-10-17 15:32   ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Shuah Khan

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=e332116b-62e8-9930-c263-d022edb5828e@gmail.com \
    --to=frowand.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
    --cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.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).