> -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Rowand > > On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > >> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote: > > [...] > >>>> Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what > >>>> I intended to communicate, it seems to me that you are focused on > >>>> the "where allowed" and I am focused on the "which email > >>>> addresses". > >>>> > >>>> More clear? Or am I still not communicating well enough? > >>> > >>> I think the crux of the disagreement is that you think the carve > >>> out equates to a permission which is not specific enough and I > >>> think it > >> > >> Nope. That is a big place where I was not transferring my thoughts > >> to clear communication. I agree that what I wrote should have been > >> written in terms of carve out instead of permission. > >> > >> > >>> doesn't equate to a permission at all, which is why there's no need > >>> to make it more explicit. Is that a fair characterisation? > >> > >> Nope. My concern is "which email addresses". > > > > The idea here was because it's a carve out that doesn't give permission > > and because the permission is ruled by the project contribution > > documents, the carve out should be broad enough to cover anything they > > might say hence "email addresses not ordinarily collected by the > > project" are still included as unacceptable behaviour. > > > > Perhaps if you propose the wording you'd like to see it would help > > because there still looks to be some subtlety I'm not getting. > > > From the beginning of the thread: > > > @@ -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 > > > Alternative (and I'm sure someone else can probably clean this up a little > bit): > > + address that has been provided in a public space for the project, without > explicit permission
This ends up reading like so: ---- Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: ... * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address that has been provided in a public space for the project, without explicit permission. ---- I think that in context, you want a 'not' in there. That is: unacceptable behavior includes publishing others' private information... that has *not* been provided in a public space. So, I think the suggested text needs some fixing, IMHO. I looked at this issue upstream, and decided to leave the wording in the CoC itself alone - favoring instead to add a clarifying addition to the upstream CoC FAQ, about some email addresses not being private information. The reason I took that approach, rather than try to change the wording inside the CoC, is that the current wording seems to me to be sufficient. The thing that is unacceptable is publishing private information. The "such as..." clause is intended to convey examples of the types of thing that might usually be considered private information. But it is not exhaustive, nor is it necessarily correct, depending on the circumstances. In particular, email addresses are sometimes private information and sometimes not. In the context of kernel development, many email addresses are not private. I am sympathetic to the argument that we use emails as public information so much in kernel development processes, that it makes sense to omit this or qualify it more. My own views are that: 1) if we change this line at all, we should simply omit the "such as..." part of the phrase, and leave it at: * Publishing others’ private information without explicit permission but also 2) I'm OK with leaving the phrase as is and handling the concerns in an clarifying document. Just my 2 cents. -- Tim