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 15ABE37E8 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:26:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.bootlin.com (mail.bootlin.com [62.4.15.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BAC7712 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:26:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 21:26:02 +0200 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Frank Rowand Message-ID: <20181017192602.GA17341@piout.net> References: <1539701820.2805.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1539701896.2805.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1539744091.2805.108.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <16a20416-0045-dfe6-d937-63f2f0cff269@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16a20416-0045-dfe6-d937-63f2f0cff269@gmail.com> Cc: James Bottomley , linux-kernel , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v3 1/3] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello, On 17/10/2018 11:49:06-0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > Permission vs exclusion is orthogonal to my comments. > > "building linux" is not the patch wording. "ordinarily collected by the > project" is a much broader universe. > > A very simplistic definition of public _could_ be: > > - Visible on a project mail list that any one can subscribe to > - Visible on a project mail list whose archive is available via > the public internet > - Visible on an interactive communication ("chat") platform that > is open to the public internet > - Published on a web page intended for public access (for example > this could cover opt-in conference attendee lists and emails > that conference presenters voluntarily place in their slides). What about properly formatted patches (with From and SoB) sent to the maintainer, without copying any mailing lists? To me, a patch sent to a maintainer is obviously sent for inclusion in the kernel. > - (I am guessing the above covers 97% or more of possible public > sources, but maybe there are some more common sources.) > > I'm sure that the professionals that deal with information privacy > could provide better wording for the above list. I am but an > amateur in that field. > > Anything else collected by the project would not be considered public. > For example, an email address provided in an email sent to me and not > copied to any mail list would not be public. -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com