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;
Date:   Mon, 8 Oct 2018 12:57:51 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity
 about collecting email addresses
Message-ID: <20181008195750.GA5367@localhost>
References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <1538861799.4088.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <20181008152043.GA5796@localhost>
 <1539012620.4344.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <20181008162357.7004ba48@coco.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20181008162357.7004ba48@coco.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:23:57PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Mon, 08 Oct 2018 08:30:20 -0700
> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> escreveu:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Fully agreed on that. The same argument that we use for GPL 2 only
> applies here: we should stick with an specific version of this it, in
> a way that we won't be automatically bound to whatever new version
> of it would say.

Linking to a FAQ with useful clarifications in it doesn't make those
"binding". This is *not* a legal agreement.