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:   Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:56:23 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
To:     Rainer Fiebig <jrf@mailbox.org>
Cc:     james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com,
        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: <20181009185622.GA20960@localhost>
References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <1538861799.4088.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <20181008152043.GA5796@localhost>
 <1718828.OxLgMoHbrt@siriux>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1718828.OxLgMoHbrt@siriux>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.