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]

Message-ID: <20181009185622.GA20960@localhost>
Date:   Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:56:23 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:     Rainer Fiebig <jrf@...lbox.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

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.