[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [7]   [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
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 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.



 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-07 11:54    [W:0.295 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site