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

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>]

Em Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 04:29:48PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab escreveu:
> 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.
> 
> The DCO 1.1 has an explicit clause that would allow to publish the
> email address from the SOB's, together to its redistribution:
> 
> "       (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
>             are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
>             personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
>             maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
>             this project or the open source license(s) involved."
> 
> But that doesn't cover the other tags.
> 
> We should solve this quickly, as otherwise maintainers may need to postpone
> asking for pulling from any branches on trees that contain patches with
> such tags.

Right, this would have to be rephrased, to say that no manual convertion
should be performed anymore:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker
has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patch
mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an
explicit ack).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Arnaldo