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 5C551E39 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:38:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB195318 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:38:07 +0000 (UTC) From: Laurent Pinchart To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 02:38:18 +0300 Message-ID: <7909721.24ppt1u8vO@avalon> In-Reply-To: <20180918190618.6be95e7b@gandalf.local.home> References: <20180918193644.GA5400@localhost> <20180918190618.6be95e7b@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , James Bottomley 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 Wednesday, 19 September 2018 02:06:18 EEST Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:36:45 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: > > > 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 (Publishing someone's private, otherwise-unpublished email address in an 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.) > > And this has been my work flow all along. I'm very conscience of taking > someone's email and publishing it in a "Reported-by". I will first send > an email to the submitter and ask if it is OK to include them if they > sent me the bug report privately. > > But yes, if someone sends me a report and Cc's LKML, I will add the > Reported-by with the email address that they used to a public address > without any confirmation. Taking a step back, I'd like to clarify the intent of this specific provision before discussing its working or any FAQ entry that we believe is needed. As I understand it, the intent is to avoid individuals being put under the spotlight without consent, with the risks of harassment that could follow (or, probably usual in the problematic cases, with the disclosure already being part of a harassment campaign). If that assumption is correct, I believe we could clarify the intent by stating that (probably reworded by a better English speaker than me) is excluded from private information in the context of a public communication any information already posted to public channels in the same context (the context is important here, as if someone digs up messages I posted, let's say on health-related public forums, with my name hidden but associated with the same e-mail address, those would still be private information). Additionally, and this applies more broadly, I believe it would be useful to clearly state that accidental disclosure of private information that could reasonably not be interpreted as private by the discloser will not result in immediate retaliation on the first occurrence. The goal of the code of conduct, as I interpret it, is to define the generally accepted an unaccepted behaviour, not to be used as an excuse to punish anyone. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart