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: <5b83b344-aee5-b464-4cea-4e376411e828@mailbox.org>
Date:   Wed, 10 Oct 2018 07:52:23 +0200
From:   Rainer Fiebig <jrf@...lbox.org>
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Cc:     Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity
 about collecting email addresses

Laurent Pinchart schrieb:
> 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 :-/
> 
I've been thinking about this a bit lately. Maybe it might be good to explicitly mention that common
goal in a sort of a preamble. Here are the first few lines of what came to my mind:


Code of Conduct
+++++++++++++++

The goal of the Linux kernel development process is to maintain and advance
the most robust operating system kernel ever.

Needless to say, views on how to achieve this will differ at times.

In order to keep arguments civilized and to ensure an open, positive
and constructive environment, we have setup guidelines
that participants are expected to comply with:

No bias
=======

Nobody must be discriminated or favored due to personal traits like
- for example - age, gender or ethnicity. They are irrelevant.
What counts is whether the contribution is in line with a/m goal.
Any such contribution will be carefully reviewed.

Be excellent to each other
==========================
[...]


So long!

Rainer Fiebig