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 9E1D4127F for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 19:36:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.196]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D987D79 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 19:36:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:36:45 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Message-ID: <20180918193644.GA5400@localhost> References: <1537279328.3424.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20180918162948.769dda1d@coco.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20180918162948.769dda1d@coco.lan> 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: , 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: > > > > 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. (Publishing someone's private, otherwise-unpublished email address in an Acked-by, on the other hand, *could* be problematic. Don't do that.) Nonetheless, it probably couldn't hurt to have some notes on this situation somewhere.