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: <1539114254.4876.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date:   Tue, 09 Oct 2018 12:44:14 -0700
From:   James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rainer Fiebig <jrf@...lbox.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the
 ambiguity about collecting email addresses

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
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