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;
From:   Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To:     ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Cc:     Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Rainer Fiebig <jrf@mailbox.org>,
        james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Date:   Tue, 09 Oct 2018 22:38:57 +0300
Message-ID: <1877914.JXSoZ9jg4d@avalon>
Organization: Ideas on Board Oy
In-Reply-To: <20181009185622.GA20960@localhost>
References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1718828.OxLgMoHbrt@siriux> <20181009185622.GA20960@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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 :-/

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart