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 41CF86D4E for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:12:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cys01nam02on0109.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.37.109]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A64A7C for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:12:11 +0000 (UTC) From: To: , Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:12:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20181007085102.17795-1-geert@linux-m68k.org> <20181007113514.GA21217@localhost> <1814283.64diKEr4zR@avalon> <20181008022931.GB30346@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20181008022931.GB30346@localhost> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list of discrimination factors List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > -----Original Message----- > From: Josh Triplett >=20 > On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 08:18:26PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hi Josh, > > > > On Sunday, 7 October 2018 14:35:14 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 10:51:02AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > Providing an explicit list of discrimination factors may give the f= alse > > > > impression that discrimination based on other unlisted factors woul= d be > > > > allowed. > > > > > > > > Avoid any ambiguity by removing the list, to ensure "a harassment-f= ree > > > > experience for everyone", period. > > > > > > I would suggest reading the commit message that added this in the fir= st > > > place. "Explicit guidelines have demonstrated success in other projec= ts > > > and other areas of the kernel." See also various comparisons of codes= of > > > conduct, which make the same point. The point of this list is precise= ly > > > to serve as one such explicit guideline; removing it would rather def= eat > > > the purpose. > > > > > > In any case, this is not the appropriate place for such patches, any > > > more than it's the place for patches to the GPL. > > > > So what's an appropriate place to discuss the changes that we would lik= e, > > *together*, to make to the current document and propose upstream ? >=20 > I didn't say "not the appropriate place to discuss" (ksummit-discuss is > not ideal but we don't currently have somewhere better), I said "not the > appropriate place for such patches". >=20 > The Linux kernel is by no means the only project using the Contributor > Covenant. In general, we don't encourage people working on significant > changes to the Linux kernel to work in private for an extended period > and only pop up when "done"; rather, we encourage people to start > conversations early and include others in the design. Along the same > lines, I'd suggest that patches or ideas for patches belong upstream. > For instance, the idea of clarifying that email addresses already used > on a public mailing list don't count as "private information" seems like > a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and one that other projects would > benefit from as well. So I raised this issue with upstream about 2 weeks ago, and here is my experience: 1) I suggested that the email clarification could be put into the covenant itself, or in a supporting FAQ. 2) The project maintainer (Coraline Ada Ehmke) was pleasant and supportive of changes to enhance the document, and said either approach would be fine. 3) I noticed that there was a FAQ in progress of being created. 4) After thinking about it, I decided that I didn't want to alter the langu= age of the covenant, because I didn't want to dilute the expression of a need t= o get permission when revealing private information. My own opinion is that putting clarifying language in a FAQ is sufficient. So I made the following recommendation for the (not yet included upstream) FAQ: Q: Does the prohibition on publishing private information include email add= resses sent to a public list? A: No. Information that has voluntarily been published to a public location= does not fall under the category of private information. Such public infor= mation may be used within the context of the project according to project n= orms (such as in commit meta-data in code repositories), without that const= ituting a breach of the CoC. You can see the history of discussion in these two issues, online: https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/590 https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/575 I hesitated to post these, because a formatting error in one of the posts m= akes me look a bit dumb. :-) I don't know what progress is being made adopting the FAQ, but Coraline see= ms very supportive, and I've told here that I will come back and help with it if it= stalls. Honestly, I believe Linux will adopt its own FAQ or some similar document, = so with the Contributor Covenant adopting the clarification as a separate document, I d= on't know if Linux would inherit it (ie include the Covenant FAQ in our source tree).= However, I think that the existence of this email clarification in the upstream FAQ would st= ill have a beneficial effect for all downstream users of the covenant, so I view this = as a useful exercise. -- Tim