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 B76661364 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 19:52:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DE5B8D for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 19:52:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:52:03 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Josh Triplett Message-ID: <20180918165203.69de8cc4@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: <20180918193644.GA5400@localhost> References: <1537279328.3424.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20180918162948.769dda1d@coco.lan> <20180918193644.GA5400@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC FOR KS] CoC and Linus position (perhaps undocumented/closed/limited/invite session) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Em Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:36:45 -0700 Josh Triplett 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 escreveu: > > =20 > > > > 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. > > > > =20 > > =20 > > > From my perspective, which is probably fairly widespread: we're alrea= dy > > > 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. =20 > >=20 > > After carefully reading it a couple of times, I think it has a huge > > impact. > >=20 > > The more immediate impact is with regards to this wording: > >=20 > > "Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > > ... > > * Publishing others=E2=80=99 private information, such as a physical o= r electronic > > address, without explicit permission" > >=20 > > When we publish a patch with a Signed-off-by, Reviewed-by, Acked-by, > > Requested-by, Suggested-by, etc, we are actually publishing an electron= ic > > address. =20 >=20 > 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.