Re: [PATCH] docs: Add a QEMU Code of Conduct and Conflict Resolution Policy document

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:

> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 11:23, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>> Or consider the case you get a bug report not copied to the public
>> mailing lists from someone you don't know. Then I would still expect to
>> be allowed to attribute a commit via Reported-by/CC to that person, as
>> it seems in his/her interest to get the bug fixed and be notified,
>> unless explicitly requested otherwise.
>
> FWIW, in this kind of situation, I generally try to explicitly
> ask the submitter if they're OK with my adding a reported-by
> tag, just as a matter of politeness. Not everybody is OK with
> having their email address publicly recorded on mailing list
> archives and in git history forever.

That's what I'd do, too.

Still, neglecting to ask for permission to publicly credit a bug report
is not anywhere near doxing.  If the public credit turns out to be
unwanted, a sincere apology is obviously called for.  People may exist
who need to be slapped over the head with a code of conduct to figure
that out.  I hope we'll never need to do that.

Anyway.  What I see at work here is one of the unintended consequences
of formal codes of conduct: they read like law, so people read them
lawyerly.  Our CoC attempts to avoid this by explicitly stating its
*purpose*: "a guide to make it easier to be excellent to each other."

This applies to the QEMU leadership committee in spades.  Treating
negligent publication of some technical e-mail's sender address as
malicious doxing wouldn't be excellent to anyone, it would be the
leadership committee shooting themselves into the foot with a machine
gun".

Let's not worry about that, okay?