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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:08:20 +0200
From:   Rainer Fiebig <jrf@...lbox.org>
To:     Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:     james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity
 about collecting email addresses

Josh Triplett schrieb:
> 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 don't know what that complicated problem was. The commit message is a bit vaque in that respect.
But I bet that in the end it *was* simple. And it probably wasn't that people felt discriminated
because of their "body size".

I also think that people actually do share a common understanding. Otherwise *no* CoC would work -
however explicit it would be. We're not that different after all.

A CoC that needs a FAQ to be understood may create more problems that it solves.

So long!


Rainer Fiebig