[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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 .
>>> 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

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-10 09:08    [W:0.275 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site