On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 02:53:11PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 08:04:39AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 09:33 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > I think there's much more value in adopting a widely used code of
> > > conduct than writing your own, or even trying to tweak it. If a project
> > > uses the Contributor Covenant, you pretty much know the rules without
> > > actually having to read another document and wonder what this all means.
> > > In this regard, it's really not unlike the GPL for copyleft licenses;
> > > one acronym tells you what you can and can't do.
> > >
> > > With that perspective, I think the changes proposed in this thread do
> > > more harm than good. If people still insist the text should be improved,
> > > I think the proper flow is to file issues or pull requests to
> > > Contributor Covenant upstream [1], and later update to a new version of
> > > the document.
> >
> > I'll note that isn't what Linus did with the GPL.
> >
> > But perhaps there's a possible solution: Instead of editing the text of
> > the covenant, just preface it with a statement that email addresses
> > used on mailing lists are not considered to be private and that it is
> > acceptable (and indeed recommended) to credit individuals who have
> > contributed to reporting and testing by using their email addresses.
>
> It's not just email addresses We generally require people to use their
> real name and not pseudonyms for patches and their Signed-off-by.

From my understanding, it is covered by DCO clause (d).
https://developercertificate.org/
https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/dco

Thanks

>
> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss