Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On 10/06/18 14:36, James Bottomley wrote: > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: James Bottomley > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email > addresses > > 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 collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > * Public or private harassment > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > - address, without explicit permission > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit > permission > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a >professional setting My understanding of the concern behind this change is that we should be able to use an email address for the current development practices, such as Reported-by, Suggested-by, etc tags when the email address was provided in what is a public space for the project. The public space is visible to anyone in the world who desires to access it. I do not understand how "ordinarily collected by the project" is equivalent to "an email address that was provided in a public space for the project". Ordinarily collected could include activities that can be expected to be private and not visible to any arbitrary person in the world. My issue is with the word choice. I agree with the underlying concept. -Frank
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On 10/06/18 14:36, James Bottomley wrote: > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: James Bottomley > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email > addresses > > 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 collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > * Public or private harassment > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > - address, without explicit permission > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit > permission > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a >professional setting My understanding of the concern behind this change is that we should be able to use an email address for the current development practices, such as Reported-by, Suggested-by, etc tags when the email address was provided in what is a public space for the project. The public space is visible to anyone in the world who desires to access it. I do not understand how "ordinarily collected by the project" is equivalent to "an email address that was provided in a public space for the project". Ordinarily collected could include activities that can be expected to be private and not visible to any arbitrary person in the world. My issue is with the word choice. I agree with the underlying concept. -Frank
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
> > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > --- > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political > > attacks > > * Public or private harassment > > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > > - address, without explicit permission > > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit > > permission > > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a > >professional setting > > > > I agree we want something like this, the question is whether we want > to change the CoC text from upstream, or clarify it in a separate > section. If this comes from some kind of "upstream", that should be clearly marked so in the document or at least in the git log. I was always wondering who created that "useful document". Pavel (And would still like to know what the background story is.) -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
> > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > --- > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political > > attacks > > * Public or private harassment > > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > > - address, without explicit permission > > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit > > permission > > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a > >professional setting > > > > I agree we want something like this, the question is whether we want > to change the CoC text from upstream, or clarify it in a separate > section. If this comes from some kind of "upstream", that should be clearly marked so in the document or at least in the git log. I was always wondering who created that "useful document". Pavel (And would still like to know what the background story is.) -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
James Bottomley schrieb: > On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 22:38 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> Hi Josh, >> >> On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 21:56:23 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for email addresses >> ordinarily collected by the project to correct this >> ambiguity. > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many > other questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that > FAQ.) The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a FAQ. Hm. >>> >>> Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was >>> previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a >>> common understanding. >> >> I see an elephant in the room in the fact that we have carefully >> avoided discussing whether people share a common goal here :-/ > > We don't need to share a common goal; we just need to find the It wouldn't hurt to have one and mention it either. > document useful on its merits. That's why we're a mostly GPLv2 > project without signing up to most of the FSF philosophy. However, > that's also why we would keep our own interpretations, understandings > and clarifications in house, as it were. > > James > Sure. So long! Rainer Fiebig
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
James Bottomley schrieb: > On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 22:38 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> Hi Josh, >> >> On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 21:56:23 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for email addresses >> ordinarily collected by the project to correct this >> ambiguity. > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many > other questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that > FAQ.) The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a FAQ. Hm. >>> >>> Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was >>> previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a >>> common understanding. >> >> I see an elephant in the room in the fact that we have carefully >> avoided discussing whether people share a common goal here :-/ > > We don't need to share a common goal; we just need to find the It wouldn't hurt to have one and mention it either. > document useful on its merits. That's why we're a mostly GPLv2 > project without signing up to most of the FSF philosophy. However, > that's also why we would keep our own interpretations, understandings > and clarifications in house, as it were. > > James > Sure. So long! Rainer Fiebig
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Josh Triplett schrieb: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: >> Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: >>> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this ambiguity. >>> >>> Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other >>> questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . >>> >>> Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? >>> (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) >>> >> >> The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. >> The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a FAQ. >> Hm. > > Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was > previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a common > understanding. > I don't know what that complicated problem was. The commit message is a bit vaque in that respect. But I bet that in the end it *was* simple. And it probably wasn't that people felt discriminated because of their "body size". I also think that people actually do share a common understanding. Otherwise *no* CoC would work - however explicit it would be. We're not that different after all. A CoC that needs a FAQ to be understood may create more problems that it solves. So long! Rainer Fiebig
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Josh Triplett schrieb: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: >> Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: >>> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this ambiguity. >>> >>> Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other >>> questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . >>> >>> Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? >>> (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) >>> >> >> The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. >> The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a FAQ. >> Hm. > > Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was > previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a common > understanding. > I don't know what that complicated problem was. The commit message is a bit vaque in that respect. But I bet that in the end it *was* simple. And it probably wasn't that people felt discriminated because of their "body size". I also think that people actually do share a common understanding. Otherwise *no* CoC would work - however explicit it would be. We're not that different after all. A CoC that needs a FAQ to be understood may create more problems that it solves. So long! Rainer Fiebig
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Laurent Pinchart schrieb: > Hi Josh, > > On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 21:56:23 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: >>> Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > ambiguity. Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) >>> >>> The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. >>> The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a >>> FAQ. Hm. >> >> Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was >> previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a common >> understanding. > > I see an elephant in the room in the fact that we have carefully avoided > discussing whether people share a common goal here :-/ > I've been thinking about this a bit lately. Maybe it might be good to explicitly mention that common goal in a sort of a preamble. Here are the first few lines of what came to my mind: Code of Conduct +++ The goal of the Linux kernel development process is to maintain and advance the most robust operating system kernel ever. Needless to say, views on how to achieve this will differ at times. In order to keep arguments civilized and to ensure an open, positive and constructive environment, we have setup guidelines that participants are expected to comply with: No bias === Nobody must be discriminated or favored due to personal traits like - for example - age, gender or ethnicity. They are irrelevant. What counts is whether the contribution is in line with a/m goal. Any such contribution will be carefully reviewed. Be excellent to each other == [...] So long! Rainer Fiebig
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Laurent Pinchart schrieb: > Hi Josh, > > On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 21:56:23 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: >>> Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > ambiguity. Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) >>> >>> The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. >>> The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a >>> FAQ. Hm. >> >> Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was >> previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a common >> understanding. > > I see an elephant in the room in the fact that we have carefully avoided > discussing whether people share a common goal here :-/ > I've been thinking about this a bit lately. Maybe it might be good to explicitly mention that common goal in a sort of a preamble. Here are the first few lines of what came to my mind: Code of Conduct +++ The goal of the Linux kernel development process is to maintain and advance the most robust operating system kernel ever. Needless to say, views on how to achieve this will differ at times. In order to keep arguments civilized and to ensure an open, positive and constructive environment, we have setup guidelines that participants are expected to comply with: No bias === Nobody must be discriminated or favored due to personal traits like - for example - age, gender or ethnicity. They are irrelevant. What counts is whether the contribution is in line with a/m goal. Any such contribution will be carefully reviewed. Be excellent to each other == [...] So long! Rainer Fiebig
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 22:38 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Josh, > > On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 21:56:23 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: > > > Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > > > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for email addresses > > > > > ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > > > > ambiguity. > > > > > > > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many > > > > other questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > > > > > > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > > > > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that > > > > FAQ.) > > > > > > The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. > > > The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it > > > needs a FAQ. Hm. > > > > Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was > > previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a > > common understanding. > > I see an elephant in the room in the fact that we have carefully > avoided discussing whether people share a common goal here :-/ We don't need to share a common goal; we just need to find the document useful on its merits. That's why we're a mostly GPLv2 project without signing up to most of the FSF philosophy. However, that's also why we would keep our own interpretations, understandings and clarifications in house, as it were. James
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 22:38 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Josh, > > On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 21:56:23 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: > > > Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > > > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for email addresses > > > > > ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > > > > ambiguity. > > > > > > > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many > > > > other questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > > > > > > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > > > > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that > > > > FAQ.) > > > > > > The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. > > > The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it > > > needs a FAQ. Hm. > > > > Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was > > previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a > > common understanding. > > I see an elephant in the room in the fact that we have carefully > avoided discussing whether people share a common goal here :-/ We don't need to share a common goal; we just need to find the document useful on its merits. That's why we're a mostly GPLv2 project without signing up to most of the FSF philosophy. However, that's also why we would keep our own interpretations, understandings and clarifications in house, as it were. James
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Hi Josh, On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 21:56:23 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: > > Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > >> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for > >>> email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > >>> ambiguity. > >> > >> Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > >> questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > >> > >> Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? > >> (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > > > > The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. > > The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a > > FAQ. Hm. > > Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was > previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a common > understanding. I see an elephant in the room in the fact that we have carefully avoided discussing whether people share a common goal here :-/ -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Hi Josh, On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 21:56:23 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: > > Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > >> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for > >>> email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > >>> ambiguity. > >> > >> Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > >> questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > >> > >> Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? > >> (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > > > > The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. > > The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a > > FAQ. Hm. > > Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was > previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a common > understanding. I see an elephant in the room in the fact that we have carefully avoided discussing whether people share a common goal here :-/ -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: > Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected > > > by > > > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? > > (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > > > > The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. > The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a FAQ. > Hm. Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a common understanding.
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: > Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected > > > by > > > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? > > (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > > > > The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. > The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a FAQ. > Hm. Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a common understanding.
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by > > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? > (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a FAQ. Hm. Here's a one-line Code of Conduct from Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."[1] Put another way: Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you. Simple beats complex. No FAQ necessary, imo. Regards! Rainer Fiebig [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant -- The truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought. Richard Feynman
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by > > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? > (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a FAQ. Hm. Here's a one-line Code of Conduct from Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."[1] Put another way: Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you. Simple beats complex. No FAQ necessary, imo. Regards! Rainer Fiebig [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant -- The truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought. Richard Feynman
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 12:57:51PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:23:57PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Fully agreed on that. The same argument that we use for GPL 2 only > > applies here: we should stick with an specific version of this it, in > > a way that we won't be automatically bound to whatever new version > > of it would say. > Linking to a FAQ with useful clarifications in it doesn't make those > "binding". This is *not* a legal agreement. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to interpret the contributor covenant in that sort of fashion - one of the consequences of the fact that it does things people want like be explicit about exactly what behaviours it's covering, specify consequences and so on is that it looks a lot like how things that are intended to be some sort of legal document look. This is going to be especially true for non-native speakers. If it is causing problems that needs some clarification but to be honest if people are erring on the side of taking the code of conduct too seriously that doesn't seem like the worst thing ever. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 12:57:51PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:23:57PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Fully agreed on that. The same argument that we use for GPL 2 only > > applies here: we should stick with an specific version of this it, in > > a way that we won't be automatically bound to whatever new version > > of it would say. > Linking to a FAQ with useful clarifications in it doesn't make those > "binding". This is *not* a legal agreement. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to interpret the contributor covenant in that sort of fashion - one of the consequences of the fact that it does things people want like be explicit about exactly what behaviours it's covering, specify consequences and so on is that it looks a lot like how things that are intended to be some sort of legal document look. This is going to be especially true for non-native speakers. If it is causing problems that needs some clarification but to be honest if people are erring on the side of taking the code of conduct too seriously that doesn't seem like the worst thing ever. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:23:57PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Mon, 08 Oct 2018 08:30:20 -0700 > James Bottomley escreveu: > > > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:20 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for > > > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > > > ambiguity. > > > > > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > > > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > > > > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > > > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > > > > We can debate that as part of everything else, but my personal opinion > > would be we should never point to an outside document under someone > > else's control for guidance as to how our community would enforce its > > own code of conduct. > > Fully agreed on that. The same argument that we use for GPL 2 only > applies here: we should stick with an specific version of this it, in > a way that we won't be automatically bound to whatever new version > of it would say. Linking to a FAQ with useful clarifications in it doesn't make those "binding". This is *not* a legal agreement.
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:23:57PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Mon, 08 Oct 2018 08:30:20 -0700 > James Bottomley escreveu: > > > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:20 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for > > > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > > > ambiguity. > > > > > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > > > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > > > > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > > > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > > > > We can debate that as part of everything else, but my personal opinion > > would be we should never point to an outside document under someone > > else's control for guidance as to how our community would enforce its > > own code of conduct. > > Fully agreed on that. The same argument that we use for GPL 2 only > applies here: we should stick with an specific version of this it, in > a way that we won't be automatically bound to whatever new version > of it would say. Linking to a FAQ with useful clarifications in it doesn't make those "binding". This is *not* a legal agreement.
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Em Sun, 07 Oct 2018 08:29:01 -0700 James Bottomley escreveu: > On Sun, 2018-10-07 at 11:04 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley > > wrote: > > > > > > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > > > 2001 > > > From: James Bottomley > > > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about > > > collecting email > > > addresses > > > > > > 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 collected by the project to correct this > > > ambiguity. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > om> > > > --- > > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants > > > include: > > > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or > > > political attacks > > > * Public or private harassment > > > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or > > > electronic > > > - address, without explicit permission > > > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without > > > explicit permission > > > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate > > > in a > > > professional setting > > > > We've discussed this a bit with freedesktop.org people a while ago, > > both from a CoC and privacy regulations pov, and we concluded that > > attaching random people's emails in Reported-by: and similar lines, > > without their consent, is indeed a problem. Bugzilla is rather > > problematic in this way, since it looks like it's protecting your > > email address and keeping it private, but then you can still just > > grab it from the bugzilla emails without first asking for permission. > > That's one of the reasons why fd.o admins want to retire Bugzilla in > > favour of gitlab issues (where this is handled a lot more strictly). > > This is a code of conduct example of a violation. While I agree we > should exercise sensitivity in reporter expectations I don't think a > maintainer getting it wrong should be equated to doxxing. > > In many ways, this is why having examples sections in quasi legal > documents is a bad thing to do because it's arguable (as you have done) > that if some behaviour isn't explicitly mentioned in the unacceptable > examples it must be acceptable. > > Look at it this way: if a maintainer screws up and adds a reported by > from someone who didn't expect their email to be published should that > be treated as an immediate code of conduct violation by whatever > enforcement process we come up with? I think most maintainers would > answer "no" to this. Agreed. I'd say more: what happens if someone adds a diff inside a bug report? Not adding the author can be problematic too. People should assume that, when reporting a bug, replying to a patch, etc, his e-mail will be visible by people, and it can be used when a fixup patch is produced. If someone doesn't want that, it should *explicitly* say otherwise. The text changes suggested by James reflects that: an e-mail sent in private, with an explicit message saying to not use the personal address is not an "electronic address not ordinarily collected by the project". Of course, it is up to the maintainer/developer that receives such e-mails to either use its content, anonimizing the submitter as requested (and eventually taking associated risks with regards to GPL - if the email contains a patch) or to just ignore it. Anyway, such "special cases" are the kind of thing that makes sense on a FAQ, and not at the letter of the document itself. Thanks, Mauro
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Em Sun, 07 Oct 2018 08:29:01 -0700 James Bottomley escreveu: > On Sun, 2018-10-07 at 11:04 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley > > wrote: > > > > > > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > > > 2001 > > > From: James Bottomley > > > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about > > > collecting email > > > addresses > > > > > > 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 collected by the project to correct this > > > ambiguity. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > om> > > > --- > > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants > > > include: > > > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or > > > political attacks > > > * Public or private harassment > > > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or > > > electronic > > > - address, without explicit permission > > > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without > > > explicit permission > > > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate > > > in a > > > professional setting > > > > We've discussed this a bit with freedesktop.org people a while ago, > > both from a CoC and privacy regulations pov, and we concluded that > > attaching random people's emails in Reported-by: and similar lines, > > without their consent, is indeed a problem. Bugzilla is rather > > problematic in this way, since it looks like it's protecting your > > email address and keeping it private, but then you can still just > > grab it from the bugzilla emails without first asking for permission. > > That's one of the reasons why fd.o admins want to retire Bugzilla in > > favour of gitlab issues (where this is handled a lot more strictly). > > This is a code of conduct example of a violation. While I agree we > should exercise sensitivity in reporter expectations I don't think a > maintainer getting it wrong should be equated to doxxing. > > In many ways, this is why having examples sections in quasi legal > documents is a bad thing to do because it's arguable (as you have done) > that if some behaviour isn't explicitly mentioned in the unacceptable > examples it must be acceptable. > > Look at it this way: if a maintainer screws up and adds a reported by > from someone who didn't expect their email to be published should that > be treated as an immediate code of conduct violation by whatever > enforcement process we come up with? I think most maintainers would > answer "no" to this. Agreed. I'd say more: what happens if someone adds a diff inside a bug report? Not adding the author can be problematic too. People should assume that, when reporting a bug, replying to a patch, etc, his e-mail will be visible by people, and it can be used when a fixup patch is produced. If someone doesn't want that, it should *explicitly* say otherwise. The text changes suggested by James reflects that: an e-mail sent in private, with an explicit message saying to not use the personal address is not an "electronic address not ordinarily collected by the project". Of course, it is up to the maintainer/developer that receives such e-mails to either use its content, anonimizing the submitter as requested (and eventually taking associated risks with regards to GPL - if the email contains a patch) or to just ignore it. Anyway, such "special cases" are the kind of thing that makes sense on a FAQ, and not at the letter of the document itself. Thanks, Mauro
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Em Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:37:59 +1000 Dave Airlie escreveu: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:25:35AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > > This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from > > > the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions > > > if they are considered appropriate. > > > > Nicely done, that - gotta love the passive voice use. Considered > > appropriate > > *by* *whom*? > > Good question, do we have a CoC maintainer? Is Linus it, Greg, TAB? > > Maybe step one is to find the person who can make changes to the > kernel CoC (has anyone checked if Linus or Greg will merge this). If we add it to the MAINTAINERS file (with makes perfect sense to me), I would like to have a R: entry there, in order to be notified when people propose changes to it. My personal understanding is that it may have legal value under the legislation of the Country I live, and I'd like to understand changes there that might affect my workflow. Thanks, Mauro
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Em Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:37:59 +1000 Dave Airlie escreveu: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:25:35AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > > This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from > > > the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions > > > if they are considered appropriate. > > > > Nicely done, that - gotta love the passive voice use. Considered > > appropriate > > *by* *whom*? > > Good question, do we have a CoC maintainer? Is Linus it, Greg, TAB? > > Maybe step one is to find the person who can make changes to the > kernel CoC (has anyone checked if Linus or Greg will merge this). If we add it to the MAINTAINERS file (with makes perfect sense to me), I would like to have a R: entry there, in order to be notified when people propose changes to it. My personal understanding is that it may have legal value under the legislation of the Country I live, and I'd like to understand changes there that might affect my workflow. Thanks, Mauro
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Em Sat, 06 Oct 2018 14:36:39 -0700 James Bottomley escreveu: > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: James Bottomley > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email > addresses > > 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 collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > * Public or private harassment > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > - address, without explicit permission > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit > permission > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a >professional setting > Reviewed-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Thanks, Mauro
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Em Sat, 06 Oct 2018 14:36:39 -0700 James Bottomley escreveu: > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: James Bottomley > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email > addresses > > 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 collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > * Public or private harassment > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > - address, without explicit permission > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit > permission > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a >professional setting > Reviewed-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Thanks, Mauro
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Em Mon, 08 Oct 2018 08:30:20 -0700 James Bottomley escreveu: > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:20 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for > > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > > ambiguity. > > > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > > We can debate that as part of everything else, but my personal opinion > would be we should never point to an outside document under someone > else's control for guidance as to how our community would enforce its > own code of conduct. Fully agreed on that. The same argument that we use for GPL 2 only applies here: we should stick with an specific version of this it, in a way that we won't be automatically bound to whatever new version of it would say. Btw, the term "social contract" is there at the FAQ. At least in Brazil, as far as I can tell, there's no distinction of a "social contract" and a "contract". From what I understand, both will have equal legal value. Thanks, Mauro
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Em Mon, 08 Oct 2018 08:30:20 -0700 James Bottomley escreveu: > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:20 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for > > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > > ambiguity. > > > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > > We can debate that as part of everything else, but my personal opinion > would be we should never point to an outside document under someone > else's control for guidance as to how our community would enforce its > own code of conduct. Fully agreed on that. The same argument that we use for GPL 2 only applies here: we should stick with an specific version of this it, in a way that we won't be automatically bound to whatever new version of it would say. Btw, the term "social contract" is there at the FAQ. At least in Brazil, as far as I can tell, there's no distinction of a "social contract" and a "contract". From what I understand, both will have equal legal value. Thanks, Mauro
RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:25:35AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from > the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions > if they are considered appropriate. The whole document is under 500 words, if we can manage merges of tens of thousands of lines of code, this should be pretty easy by comparison. Making it difficult to merge new upstream versions could also be considered a positive thing. Given the outcry about this version appearing with no community discussion, I think folks will also be unhappy about finding some future merge that just says "Update CoC to upstream 1.5". -Tony
RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:25:35AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from > the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions > if they are considered appropriate. The whole document is under 500 words, if we can manage merges of tens of thousands of lines of code, this should be pretty easy by comparison. Making it difficult to merge new upstream versions could also be considered a positive thing. Given the outcry about this version appearing with no community discussion, I think folks will also be unhappy about finding some future merge that just says "Update CoC to upstream 1.5". -Tony
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:20 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > ambiguity. > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) We can debate that as part of everything else, but my personal opinion would be we should never point to an outside document under someone else's control for guidance as to how our community would enforce its own code of conduct. James
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:20 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > ambiguity. > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) We can debate that as part of everything else, but my personal opinion would be we should never point to an outside document under someone else's control for guidance as to how our community would enforce its own code of conduct. James
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.)
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, 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 exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.)
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:25 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 07:36, James Bottomley > wrote: > > > > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > > 2001 > > From: James Bottomley > > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about > > collecting email addresses > > > > 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 collected by the project to correct this > > ambiguity. > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > om> > > --- > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants > > include: > > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or > > political attacks > > * Public or private harassment > > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or > > electronic > > - address, without explicit permission > > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without > > explicit permission > > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate > > in a professional setting > > > > I agree we want something like this, the question is whether we want > to change the CoC text from upstream, or clarify it in a separate > section. A Code of Conduct should be clear and not hedged around with footnotes and interpretations in my opinion, which is why I offered the patch like this. > This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from > the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions > if they are considered appropriate. The way I look at this is that it's very much like a vendor driver. Some are mirror images of the source because we work closely with them; others could be forks. However, the process for vendor drivers is that we make them work for us first and then see how the vendor wants to handle it. Once we agree the shape of what we need I promise to try to push it back into the source ... is that good enough compromise? James
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:25 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 07:36, James Bottomley > wrote: > > > > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > > 2001 > > From: James Bottomley > > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about > > collecting email addresses > > > > 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 collected by the project to correct this > > ambiguity. > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > om> > > --- > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants > > include: > > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or > > political attacks > > * Public or private harassment > > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or > > electronic > > - address, without explicit permission > > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without > > explicit permission > > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate > > in a professional setting > > > > I agree we want something like this, the question is whether we want > to change the CoC text from upstream, or clarify it in a separate > section. A Code of Conduct should be clear and not hedged around with footnotes and interpretations in my opinion, which is why I offered the patch like this. > This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from > the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions > if they are considered appropriate. The way I look at this is that it's very much like a vendor driver. Some are mirror images of the source because we work closely with them; others could be forks. However, the process for vendor drivers is that we make them work for us first and then see how the vendor wants to handle it. Once we agree the shape of what we need I promise to try to push it back into the source ... is that good enough compromise? James
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:37:59AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro wrote: > > We can surround it with "explanations" until we get something that more or > > less fits, but then we'd need to reanalyse them every time an upstream > > change gets merged. And the lack of textual conflicts is not a good thing > > in such situations, obviously. > We do this already for the GPL (hence the GPLv2 only, and syscall exceptions). That works reasonably well for licenses because people reading licenses tend to do so in a rather detail oriented fashion so it's not that big an obstacle to have something that's a bit harder to follow. It's not clear to me that the same thing is going to apply to people reading codes of conduct, especially those looking for reassurance from them. It might be OK but it's probably worth thinking about. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:37:59AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro wrote: > > We can surround it with "explanations" until we get something that more or > > less fits, but then we'd need to reanalyse them every time an upstream > > change gets merged. And the lack of textual conflicts is not a good thing > > in such situations, obviously. > We do this already for the GPL (hence the GPLv2 only, and syscall exceptions). That works reasonably well for licenses because people reading licenses tend to do so in a rather detail oriented fashion so it's not that big an obstacle to have something that's a bit harder to follow. It's not clear to me that the same thing is going to apply to people reading codes of conduct, especially those looking for reassurance from them. It might be OK but it's probably worth thinking about. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:25:35AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from > > the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions > > if they are considered appropriate. > > Nicely done, that - gotta love the passive voice use. Considered appropriate > *by* *whom*? Good question, do we have a CoC maintainer? Is Linus it, Greg, TAB? Maybe step one is to find the person who can make changes to the kernel CoC (has anyone checked if Linus or Greg will merge this). > > Anyway, upstream clearly is a poor fit for Linus kernel community structure > - the use of open lists, amount of subprojects, the length of transmission > chains into the mainline, total amount of contributors, amount of people > elsewhere in the project with occasional forays into any given area, etc. > And IIRC the CoC upstream's opinion was that it wouldn't fit. I think we can try, fixing upstream is a worthy goal for other projects in the same position, rather than everyone diverging. > > We can surround it with "explanations" until we get something that more or > less fits, but then we'd need to reanalyse them every time an upstream > change gets merged. And the lack of textual conflicts is not a good thing > in such situations, obviously. We do this already for the GPL (hence the GPLv2 only, and syscall exceptions). Dave.
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:25:35AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from > > the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions > > if they are considered appropriate. > > Nicely done, that - gotta love the passive voice use. Considered appropriate > *by* *whom*? Good question, do we have a CoC maintainer? Is Linus it, Greg, TAB? Maybe step one is to find the person who can make changes to the kernel CoC (has anyone checked if Linus or Greg will merge this). > > Anyway, upstream clearly is a poor fit for Linus kernel community structure > - the use of open lists, amount of subprojects, the length of transmission > chains into the mainline, total amount of contributors, amount of people > elsewhere in the project with occasional forays into any given area, etc. > And IIRC the CoC upstream's opinion was that it wouldn't fit. I think we can try, fixing upstream is a worthy goal for other projects in the same position, rather than everyone diverging. > > We can surround it with "explanations" until we get something that more or > less fits, but then we'd need to reanalyse them every time an upstream > change gets merged. And the lack of textual conflicts is not a good thing > in such situations, obviously. We do this already for the GPL (hence the GPLv2 only, and syscall exceptions). Dave.
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 11:56:13PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > We can surround it with "explanations" Sorry, "clarifications". Or whatever euphemism you prefer for exegesis, really...
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 11:56:13PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > We can surround it with "explanations" Sorry, "clarifications". Or whatever euphemism you prefer for exegesis, really...
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:25:35AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from > the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions > if they are considered appropriate. Nicely done, that - gotta love the passive voice use. Considered appropriate *by* *whom*? Anyway, upstream clearly is a poor fit for Linus kernel community structure - the use of open lists, amount of subprojects, the length of transmission chains into the mainline, total amount of contributors, amount of people elsewhere in the project with occasional forays into any given area, etc. And IIRC the CoC upstream's opinion was that it wouldn't fit. We can surround it with "explanations" until we get something that more or less fits, but then we'd need to reanalyse them every time an upstream change gets merged. And the lack of textual conflicts is not a good thing in such situations, obviously.
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:25:35AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from > the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions > if they are considered appropriate. Nicely done, that - gotta love the passive voice use. Considered appropriate *by* *whom*? Anyway, upstream clearly is a poor fit for Linus kernel community structure - the use of open lists, amount of subprojects, the length of transmission chains into the mainline, total amount of contributors, amount of people elsewhere in the project with occasional forays into any given area, etc. And IIRC the CoC upstream's opinion was that it wouldn't fit. We can surround it with "explanations" until we get something that more or less fits, but then we'd need to reanalyse them every time an upstream change gets merged. And the lack of textual conflicts is not a good thing in such situations, obviously.
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 07:36, James Bottomley wrote: > > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: James Bottomley > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email > addresses > > 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 collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > * Public or private harassment > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > - address, without explicit permission > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit > permission > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a >professional setting > I agree we want something like this, the question is whether we want to change the CoC text from upstream, or clarify it in a separate section. This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions if they are considered appropriate. Dave.
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 07:36, James Bottomley wrote: > > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: James Bottomley > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email > addresses > > 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 collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > * Public or private harassment > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > - address, without explicit permission > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit > permission > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a >professional setting > I agree we want something like this, the question is whether we want to change the CoC text from upstream, or clarify it in a separate section. This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions if they are considered appropriate. Dave.
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On 10/06/2018 02:36 PM, James Bottomley wrote: From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: James Bottomley Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 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 collected by the project to correct this ambiguity. Signed-off-by: James Bottomley Acked-by: Guenter Roeck --- Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks * Public or private harassment * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic - address, without explicit permission + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit permission * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On 10/06/2018 02:36 PM, James Bottomley wrote: From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: James Bottomley Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 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 collected by the project to correct this ambiguity. Signed-off-by: James Bottomley Acked-by: Guenter Roeck --- Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks * Public or private harassment * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic - address, without explicit permission + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit permission * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Sun, 2018-10-07 at 11:04 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley > wrote: > > > > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > > 2001 > > From: James Bottomley > > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about > > collecting email > > addresses > > > > 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 collected by the project to correct this > > ambiguity. > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > om> > > --- > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants > > include: > > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or > > political attacks > > * Public or private harassment > > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or > > electronic > > - address, without explicit permission > > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without > > explicit permission > > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate > > in a > > professional setting > > We've discussed this a bit with freedesktop.org people a while ago, > both from a CoC and privacy regulations pov, and we concluded that > attaching random people's emails in Reported-by: and similar lines, > without their consent, is indeed a problem. Bugzilla is rather > problematic in this way, since it looks like it's protecting your > email address and keeping it private, but then you can still just > grab it from the bugzilla emails without first asking for permission. > That's one of the reasons why fd.o admins want to retire Bugzilla in > favour of gitlab issues (where this is handled a lot more strictly). This is a code of conduct example of a violation. While I agree we should exercise sensitivity in reporter expectations I don't think a maintainer getting it wrong should be equated to doxxing. In many ways, this is why having examples sections in quasi legal documents is a bad thing to do because it's arguable (as you have done) that if some behaviour isn't explicitly mentioned in the unacceptable examples it must be acceptable. Look at it this way: if a maintainer screws up and adds a reported by from someone who didn't expect their email to be published should that be treated as an immediate code of conduct violation by whatever enforcement process we come up with? I think most maintainers would answer "no" to this. > What we discussed in the older thread here on ksummit-discuss is > making it clear that email addresses sent to public mailing lists are > considered public information, which I think is worth clarifying. But > what you're excempting here is anything collected without permission > in the past, which I don't think is a good wording. I've definitely > been skimping on the rules here in the past. At least in my > understanding of the legal situation, if you get a bug report through > a private channel, or at least a channel that hides private address > information (like Bugzilla does, albeit sloppily), then you do have > to ask for explicit consent to publishing that information. I think that's not the way to look at what a code of conduct is. The examples need to be clear and they need to exclude any usual project habits from the violations piece. The nuances of when to get permission for adding our usual tags should be covered in a separate document (the submitting patches one). James
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Sun, 2018-10-07 at 11:04 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley > wrote: > > > > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > > 2001 > > From: James Bottomley > > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about > > collecting email > > addresses > > > > 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 collected by the project to correct this > > ambiguity. > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > om> > > --- > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants > > include: > > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or > > political attacks > > * Public or private harassment > > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or > > electronic > > - address, without explicit permission > > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without > > explicit permission > > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate > > in a > > professional setting > > We've discussed this a bit with freedesktop.org people a while ago, > both from a CoC and privacy regulations pov, and we concluded that > attaching random people's emails in Reported-by: and similar lines, > without their consent, is indeed a problem. Bugzilla is rather > problematic in this way, since it looks like it's protecting your > email address and keeping it private, but then you can still just > grab it from the bugzilla emails without first asking for permission. > That's one of the reasons why fd.o admins want to retire Bugzilla in > favour of gitlab issues (where this is handled a lot more strictly). This is a code of conduct example of a violation. While I agree we should exercise sensitivity in reporter expectations I don't think a maintainer getting it wrong should be equated to doxxing. In many ways, this is why having examples sections in quasi legal documents is a bad thing to do because it's arguable (as you have done) that if some behaviour isn't explicitly mentioned in the unacceptable examples it must be acceptable. Look at it this way: if a maintainer screws up and adds a reported by from someone who didn't expect their email to be published should that be treated as an immediate code of conduct violation by whatever enforcement process we come up with? I think most maintainers would answer "no" to this. > What we discussed in the older thread here on ksummit-discuss is > making it clear that email addresses sent to public mailing lists are > considered public information, which I think is worth clarifying. But > what you're excempting here is anything collected without permission > in the past, which I don't think is a good wording. I've definitely > been skimping on the rules here in the past. At least in my > understanding of the legal situation, if you get a bug report through > a private channel, or at least a channel that hides private address > information (like Bugzilla does, albeit sloppily), then you do have > to ask for explicit consent to publishing that information. I think that's not the way to look at what a code of conduct is. The examples need to be clear and they need to exclude any usual project habits from the violations piece. The nuances of when to get permission for adding our usual tags should be covered in a separate document (the submitting patches one). James
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Hi James,
Thanks for the patch.
On 10/07/2018 02:25 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley
> wrote:
>> From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: James Bottomley
>> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting
>> email
>> addresses
>>
>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
>
> that
>
>> 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 collected by
>> the project to correct this ambiguity.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: James Bottomley
>
> Fixes: 8a104f8b5867c682 ("Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.")
>
> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
>
Acked-by: Shuah Khan
>> --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
>> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
>> * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
>> * Public or private harassment
>> * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic
>> - address, without explicit permission
>> + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit
>> permission
>> * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
>>professional setting
>
thanks,
-- Shuah
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Hi James,
Thanks for the patch.
On 10/07/2018 02:25 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley
> wrote:
>> From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: James Bottomley
>> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting
>> email
>> addresses
>>
>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
>
> that
>
>> 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 collected by
>> the project to correct this ambiguity.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: James Bottomley
>
> Fixes: 8a104f8b5867c682 ("Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.")
>
> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
>
Acked-by: Shuah Khan
>> --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
>> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
>> * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
>> * Public or private harassment
>> * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic
>> - address, without explicit permission
>> + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit
>> permission
>> * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
>>professional setting
>
thanks,
-- Shuah
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On 10/7/18 11:04 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley > wrote: >> >> From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: James Bottomley >> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting >> email >> addresses >> >> 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 collected by >> the project to correct this ambiguity. >> >> Signed-off-by: James Bottomley >> --- >> Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst >> b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst >> index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst >> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: >> * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks >> * Public or private harassment >> * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic >> - address, without explicit permission >> + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit >> permission >> * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a >>professional setting > > We've discussed this a bit with freedesktop.org people a while ago, > both from a CoC and privacy regulations pov, and we concluded that > attaching random people's emails in Reported-by: and similar lines, > without their consent, is indeed a problem. Bugzilla is rather > problematic in this way, since it looks like it's protecting your > email address and keeping it private, but then you can still just grab > it from the bugzilla emails without first asking for permission. > That's one of the reasons why fd.o admins want to retire Bugzilla in > favour of gitlab issues (where this is handled a lot more strictly). > > What we discussed in the older thread here on ksummit-discuss is > making it clear that email addresses sent to public mailing lists are > considered public information, which I think is worth clarifying. But > what you're excempting here is anything collected without permission > in the past, which I don't think is a good wording. I've definitely > been skimping on the rules here in the past. At least in my > understanding of the legal situation, if you get a bug report through > a private channel, or at least a channel that hides private address > information (like Bugzilla does, albeit sloppily), then you do have to > ask for explicit consent to publishing that information. That is my interpretation, too. And it even says so in Documentation/submitting-patches.rst, do I don't we need to clarify it further. Cheers, Hannes
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On 10/7/18 11:04 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley > wrote: >> >> From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: James Bottomley >> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting >> email >> addresses >> >> 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 collected by >> the project to correct this ambiguity. >> >> Signed-off-by: James Bottomley >> --- >> Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst >> b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst >> index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst >> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: >> * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks >> * Public or private harassment >> * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic >> - address, without explicit permission >> + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit >> permission >> * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a >>professional setting > > We've discussed this a bit with freedesktop.org people a while ago, > both from a CoC and privacy regulations pov, and we concluded that > attaching random people's emails in Reported-by: and similar lines, > without their consent, is indeed a problem. Bugzilla is rather > problematic in this way, since it looks like it's protecting your > email address and keeping it private, but then you can still just grab > it from the bugzilla emails without first asking for permission. > That's one of the reasons why fd.o admins want to retire Bugzilla in > favour of gitlab issues (where this is handled a lot more strictly). > > What we discussed in the older thread here on ksummit-discuss is > making it clear that email addresses sent to public mailing lists are > considered public information, which I think is worth clarifying. But > what you're excempting here is anything collected without permission > in the past, which I don't think is a good wording. I've definitely > been skimping on the rules here in the past. At least in my > understanding of the legal situation, if you get a bug report through > a private channel, or at least a channel that hides private address > information (like Bugzilla does, albeit sloppily), then you do have to > ask for explicit consent to publishing that information. That is my interpretation, too. And it even says so in Documentation/submitting-patches.rst, do I don't we need to clarify it further. Cheers, Hannes
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley wrote: > > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: James Bottomley > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email > addresses > > 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 collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > * Public or private harassment > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > - address, without explicit permission > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit > permission > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a >professional setting We've discussed this a bit with freedesktop.org people a while ago, both from a CoC and privacy regulations pov, and we concluded that attaching random people's emails in Reported-by: and similar lines, without their consent, is indeed a problem. Bugzilla is rather problematic in this way, since it looks like it's protecting your email address and keeping it private, but then you can still just grab it from the bugzilla emails without first asking for permission. That's one of the reasons why fd.o admins want to retire Bugzilla in favour of gitlab issues (where this is handled a lot more strictly). What we discussed in the older thread here on ksummit-discuss is making it clear that email addresses sent to public mailing lists are considered public information, which I think is worth clarifying. But what you're excempting here is anything collected without permission in the past, which I don't think is a good wording. I've definitely been skimping on the rules here in the past. At least in my understanding of the legal situation, if you get a bug report through a private channel, or at least a channel that hides private address information (like Bugzilla does, albeit sloppily), then you do have to ask for explicit consent to publishing that information. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley wrote: > > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: James Bottomley > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email > addresses > > 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 collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > * Public or private harassment > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > - address, without explicit permission > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit > permission > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a >professional setting We've discussed this a bit with freedesktop.org people a while ago, both from a CoC and privacy regulations pov, and we concluded that attaching random people's emails in Reported-by: and similar lines, without their consent, is indeed a problem. Bugzilla is rather problematic in this way, since it looks like it's protecting your email address and keeping it private, but then you can still just grab it from the bugzilla emails without first asking for permission. That's one of the reasons why fd.o admins want to retire Bugzilla in favour of gitlab issues (where this is handled a lot more strictly). What we discussed in the older thread here on ksummit-discuss is making it clear that email addresses sent to public mailing lists are considered public information, which I think is worth clarifying. But what you're excempting here is anything collected without permission in the past, which I don't think is a good wording. I've definitely been skimping on the rules here in the past. At least in my understanding of the legal situation, if you get a bug report through a private channel, or at least a channel that hides private address information (like Bugzilla does, albeit sloppily), then you do have to ask for explicit consent to publishing that information. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Hi James,
Thanks for your patch!
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
> From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: James Bottomley
> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email
> addresses
>
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
that
> 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 collected by
> the project to correct this ambiguity.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Bottomley
Fixes: 8a104f8b5867c682 ("Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.")
Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
> --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
> * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
> * Public or private harassment
> * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic
> - address, without explicit permission
> + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit
> permission
> * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
>professional setting
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
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Hi James,
Thanks for your patch!
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
> From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: James Bottomley
> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email
> addresses
>
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
that
> 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 collected by
> the project to correct this ambiguity.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Bottomley
Fixes: 8a104f8b5867c682 ("Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.")
Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
> --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
> * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
> * Public or private harassment
> * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic
> - address, without explicit permission
> + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit
> permission
> * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
>professional setting
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
