Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC FOR KS] CoC and Linus position (perhaps undocumented/closed/limited/invite session)

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>]

Em Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:36:45 -0700
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> escreveu:

> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 04:29:48PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:02:08 -0400
> > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> escreveu:
> >   
> > > > After the past 2-3 days I get the feeling there are maintainers
> > > > unsure about how this affects them and I think assuaging those fears
> > > > might be a good thing.
> > > >   
> >   
> > > From my perspective, which is probably fairly widespread: we're already
> > > pretty much policing the lists using a set of rules which match fairly
> > > closely to the new CoC, so there should really be no huge impact.  
> > 
> > After carefully reading it a couple of times, I think it has a huge
> > impact.
> > 
> > The more immediate impact is with regards to this wording:
> > 
> > 	"Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
> > 	...
> > 	* Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic
> > 	  address, without explicit permission"
> > 
> > When we publish a patch with a Signed-off-by, Reviewed-by, Acked-by,
> > Requested-by, Suggested-by, etc, we are actually publishing an electronic
> > address.  
> 
> If they've posted public mails from that email address, that isn't
> "private information" at that point. And in any case someone offering
> such a tag would constitute permission.

Good point, but I'm pretty sure it opens multiple interpretation, as
it explicitly forbids using "electronic address without explicit
permission".

> (Publishing someone's private, otherwise-unpublished email address in an
> Acked-by, on the other hand, *could* be problematic. Don't do that.)

Well, Requested-by, Suggested-by (and sometimes tested-by) is sometimes
added by the maintainer (or by the patch writer).

> Nonetheless, it probably couldn't hurt to have some notes on this
> situation somewhere.

Yes, that's my point: that part of the CoC should explicitly exclude any
electronic addresses that are used on public community-related channels,
specially on e-mail [1].

Thanks,
Mauro

[1] While this is not common, I merged in the past some patches whose
developer included parts of discussions that happened at freenode's
public IRC channels related to the project.