James, and our other friends,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:59 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity
More than one ambiguity. This whole file needs to go.
>* Trolling,
Who decides what is trolling, and what is a technique for raising
awareness or sparking
James, and our other friends,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:59 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity
More than one ambiguity. This whole file needs to go.
>* Trolling,
Who decides what is trolling, and what is a technique for raising
awareness or sparking
On 10/18/18 12:57, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-10-18 at 19:49 +, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Frank Rowand
>>>
>>> On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/17/18 12:08, James
On 10/18/18 12:57, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-10-18 at 19:49 +, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Frank Rowand
>>>
>>> On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/17/18 12:08, James
On Thu, 2018-10-18 at 19:49 +, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Frank Rowand
> >
> > On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > > > On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> >
On Thu, 2018-10-18 at 19:49 +, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Frank Rowand
> >
> > On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > > > On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Rowand
>
> On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> > [...]
> Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what
> I
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Rowand
>
> On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> > [...]
> Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what
> I
On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> [...]
Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what
I intended to communicate, it seems to me that you are focused on
On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> [...]
Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what
I intended to communicate, it seems to me that you are focused on
On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
[...]
> > > Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what
> > > I intended to communicate, it seems to me that you are focused on
> > > the "where allowed" and I am focused on the
On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
[...]
> > > Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what
> > > I intended to communicate, it seems to me that you are focused on
> > > the "where allowed" and I am focused on the
On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 11:49 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> [...]
Repeating my comment on version 1:
My understanding of the concern
On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 11:49 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> [...]
Repeating my comment on version 1:
My understanding of the concern
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:
>
> -
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:
>
> -
On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 11:49 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
[...]
> > > Repeating my comment on version 1:
> > >
> > > My understanding of the concern behind this change is that we
> > > should be
On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 11:49 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
[...]
> > > Repeating my comment on version 1:
> > >
> > > My understanding of the concern behind this change is that we
> > > should be
On 10/17/18 11:49 AM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
publishing
private
On 10/17/18 11:49 AM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
publishing
private
On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
>>> publishing
>>> private information such as email addresses unacceptable
>>>
On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
>>> publishing
>>> private information such as email addresses unacceptable
>>>
On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
> > publishing
> > private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> > behaviour. Since
> > the Linux kernel collects
On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
> > publishing
> > private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> > behaviour. Since
> > the Linux kernel collects
On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
> process, add an
On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
> process, add an
The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily
The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily
28 matches
Mail list logo
