Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <1539012620.4344.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the
 ambiguity about collecting email addresses
From:   James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To:     Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date:   Mon, 08 Oct 2018 08:30:20 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20181008152043.GA5796@localhost>
References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
         <1538861799.4088.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
         <20181008152043.GA5796@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:20 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> 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.)

We can debate that as part of everything else, but my personal opinion
would be we should never point to an outside document under someone
else's control for guidance as to how our community would enforce its
own code of conduct.

James