From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 169DE67AA for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:26:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADDAF108 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:26:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1538753161.4380.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Josh Triplett , Geert Uytterhoeven Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 08:26:01 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20181005075156.GB24138@localhost> References: <6108593.JtmfA2IdsK@avalon> <20181004203956.GR32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20181004205648.GB10640@localhost> <20181005075156.GB24138@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] New CoC and Brendan Eich List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2018-10-05 at 00:51 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 09:16:06AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: [...] > > It's not exactly the same: for the non-functional email address, > > you can still fix the issue yourself with a "Reported-by" line, > > without violating the rule about publishing addresses, as the > > address is no longer valid. > > That wasn't the situation as proposed; the situation as proposed > involved a patch already written. (And the email address issue was > already discussed; an email address attached to a publically posted > patch is hardly private information.) It's been discussed but I don't think there's been agreement about the potential problems. The problematic piece is specific mention of email address as private information. To give a more cogent example: it also mentions physical address. However, for anyone who owns their own house physical address is also a matter of public record; to find it all I have to do is search the county property records which means I can get it as long as I roughly know where you live. I think posting someone's actual address would be a CoC violation because it's irrelevant to any patch process I can think of and yet for most people it would still be "public information". The intent around that particular clause of the CoC seems to be to give enhanced privacy to something that may or may not be in the public domain, but it's badly worded to cover stuff that we use as part of our everyday process. James