Hi Tim, On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 4:12 PM <tim.b...@sony.com> wrote: > > From: Josh Triplett > > On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 08:18:26PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > false > > > > > impression that discrimination based on other unlisted factors would > > > > > be > > > > > allowed. > > > > > > > > > > Avoid any ambiguity by removing the list, to ensure "a harassment-free > > > > > experience for everyone", period. > > > > > > > > I would suggest reading the commit message that added this in the first > > > > place. "Explicit guidelines have demonstrated success in other projects > > > > 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 precisely > > > > to serve as one such explicit guideline; removing it would rather defeat > > > > 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 like, > > > *together*, to make to the current document and propose upstream ? > > > > 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". > > > > 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 language > of the covenant, because I didn't want to dilute the expression of a need to > 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 > addresses 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 > information may be used within the context of the project according to > project norms (such as in commit meta-data in code repositories), without > that constituting a breach of the CoC.
I noticed this morning this is actually already included in the FAQ (I didn't know this is recent thing): https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq > I don't know what progress is being made adopting the FAQ, but Coraline seems > very > supportive, and I've told here that I will come back and help with it if it > stalls. I'm glad to heart that! FTR, I've submitted my patch earlier today, too: https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/610 Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
