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 203BA13D1 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 20:52:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18E6680A for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 20:52:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 22:52:12 +0200 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab In-Reply-To: <20180918165203.69de8cc4@coco.lan> References: <1537279328.3424.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20180918162948.769dda1d@coco.lan> <20180918193644.GA5400@localhost> <20180918165203.69de8cc4@coco.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit 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 Tue, 18 Sep 2018 21:52:03 +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:36:45 -0700 > Josh Triplett escreveu: > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 04:29:48PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > Em Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:02:08 -0400 > > > James Bottomley escreveu: > > > > > > > > After the past 2-3 days I get the feeling there are maintainers > > > > > unsure about how this affects them and I think assuaging those fears > > > > > might be a good thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > From my perspective, which is probably fairly widespread: we're already > > > > pretty much policing the lists using a set of rules which match fairly > > > > closely to the new CoC, so there should really be no huge impact. > > > > > > After carefully reading it a couple of times, I think it has a huge > > > impact. > > > > > > The more immediate impact is with regards to this wording: > > > > > > "Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > > > ... > > > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > > > address, without explicit permission" > > > > > > 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. > > Good point, but I'm pretty sure it opens multiple interpretation, as > it explicitly forbids using "electronic address without explicit > permission". > > > (Publishing someone's private, otherwise-unpublished email address in an > > Acked-by, on the other hand, *could* be problematic. Don't do that.) > > Well, Requested-by, Suggested-by (and sometimes tested-by) is sometimes > added by the maintainer (or by the patch writer). Right, such tags are often used as credits of contributions, too. Since they are no mandatory stuff like Signed-off-by, we may drop the address part, though. Takashi > > Nonetheless, it probably couldn't hurt to have some notes on this > > situation somewhere. > > Yes, that's my point: that part of the CoC should explicitly exclude any > electronic addresses that are used on public community-related channels, > specially on e-mail [1]. > > Thanks, > Mauro > > [1] While this is not common, I merged in the past some patches whose > developer included parts of discussions that happened at freenode's > public IRC channels related to the project. > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss