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 553C66FD2 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 15:20:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay8-d.mail.gandi.net (relay8-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.201]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8F4D775 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 15:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:20:44 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20181008152043.GA5796@localhost> References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1538861799.4088.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1538861799.4088.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Cc: linux-kernel , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing > private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since > the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch > process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.)