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;
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v3 1/3] code-of-conduct: Fix the
 ambiguity about collecting email addresses
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <1539701820.2805.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <1539701896.2805.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <e332116b-62e8-9930-c263-d022edb5828e@gmail.com>
 <1539744091.2805.108.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <16a20416-0045-dfe6-d937-63f2f0cff269@gmail.com>
 <1539803331.3769.62.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b056cdc3-29de-b6c8-b2a7-67b93b0fd730@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Oct 2018 12:53:57 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1539803331.3769.62.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 11:49 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Repeating my comment on version 1:
>>>>
>>>> My understanding of the concern behind this change is that we
>>>> should be able to use an email address for the current
>>>> development practices, such as Reported-by, Suggested-by, etc
>>>> tags when the email address was provided in what is a public
>>>> space for the project.  The public space is visible to anyone in
>>>> the world who desires to access it.
>>>>
>>>> I do not understand how "ordinarily collected by the project" is
>>>> equivalent to "an email address that was provided in a public
>>>> space for the project".
>>>
>>> I don't think it is ... or should be.  This section is specifically
>>> enumerating unacceptable behaviours.  The carve out "email address
>>> not ordinarily collected by the project" means that adding
>>> someone's email address in a tag isn't immediately sanctionable in
>>> the code of conduct as unacceptable behaviour if a question about
>>> whether you asked explicit permission arises.  Equally, a carve out
>>> from unacceptable behaviours doesn't make the action always
>>> acceptable, so it's not a licence to publish someone's email
>>> address regardless of context.
>>
>> The patch says "Publishing ... electronic address not ordinarily
>> collected by the project, without explicit permission".  (I think it
>> is fair to abstract here with "...".)  This phrase specifies which
>> email addresses can be published.  It does not specify in what cases
>> the email address can be published.  The desired goal is to be able
>> to publish email addresses in patch and commit tags.
> 
> No, that's not my desired goal.   The section is not about giving
> permission it's about making sure listed unacceptable behaviours don't
> overlap what we normally do.  The goal is to exclude email the project
> ordinarily collects from immediate sanction under the unacceptable
> behaviours clause.  I deliberately didn't add anything about permission
> because that's up to the project to define in its more standard
> contribution documents.

OK.  I am fine with the goal of wording that excludes certain things
from unacceptable behavior instead providing permissions for certain
things.  I think me phrasing as permission instead of carve out is
creating a lot of the miscommunication.

Please re-read my comments, but in every place where I state things
in a way of providing permissions, re-state it in your mind as the
same sentence _except_ phrased as excluding from unacceptable
behavior.  (I started to do that explicitly, but it looked like
I was just going to create a whole lot of distracting text.)


>> Which email addresses are allowed to be published?  (This is the
>> point of my original comment.)  To me, the patch wording is
>> describing how I can determine whether I can put a specific email
>> address in a tag in a patch that I submit or commit.  I can put an
>> email address in a tag _if_ it is "ordinarily collected by the
>> project".
>>
>> This then leads my mental process down the path of the disclosures
>> (from all of the companies that I do business with) that tell me what
>> they are going to do with my personal information, such as my
>> address.  (They usually plan to share it with the world for their
>> financial benefit.) In that context, my personal information is not
>> _public_, but it is _ordinarily collected_ by the company.  I hope
>> this provides some insight into what I am reading into "ordinarily
>> collected by the project".
>>
>> My original comment was trying to provide the concept behind a way to
>> create an alternate wording in the patch to define "which email
>> addresses".
>>
>> Where are email addresses allowed to be published?  I do not
>> understand the patch wording to address this at all.
> 
> I agree, but, as I said, my goal wasn't to provide explicit permission
> (because the list is too long and too dependent on the way the project
> operates) it was to carve out an exclusion from sanction for stuff the
> kernel normally does.  The carve out doesn't translate into explicit
> permission because the project can define other standards for the way
> email addresses are added to the tags.
> 
>> Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what I
>> intended to communicate, it seems to me that you are focused on the
>> "where allowed" and I am focused on the "which email addresses".
>>
>> More clear?  Or am I still not communicating well enough?
> 
> I think the crux of the disagreement is that you think the carve out
> equates to a permission which is not specific enough and I think it

Nope.  That is a big place where I was not transferring my thoughts
to clear communication.  I agree that what I wrote should have been
written in terms of carve out instead of permission.


> doesn't equate to a permission at all, which is why there's no need to
> make it more explicit.  Is that a fair characterisation?

Nope.  My concern is "which email addresses".

-Frank


> James
> 
>