From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83074ECDE3B for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:26:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A91B213A2 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:26:07 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4A91B213A2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728406AbeJRDXN (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2018 23:23:13 -0400 Received: from mail.bootlin.com ([62.4.15.54]:36407 "EHLO mail.bootlin.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727128AbeJRDXN (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2018 23:23:13 -0400 Received: by mail.bootlin.com (Postfix, from userid 110) id ACCAA20790; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 21:26:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (unknown [88.191.26.124]) by mail.bootlin.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 80BFB20703; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 21:26:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 21:26:02 +0200 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Frank Rowand Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v3 1/3] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses Message-ID: <20181017192602.GA17341@piout.net> References: <1539701820.2805.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1539701896.2805.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1539744091.2805.108.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <16a20416-0045-dfe6-d937-63f2f0cff269@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16a20416-0045-dfe6-d937-63f2f0cff269@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On 17/10/2018 11:49:06-0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > Permission vs exclusion is orthogonal to my comments. > > "building linux" is not the patch wording. "ordinarily collected by the > project" is a much broader universe. > > A very simplistic definition of public _could_ be: > > - Visible on a project mail list that any one can subscribe to > - Visible on a project mail list whose archive is available via > the public internet > - Visible on an interactive communication ("chat") platform that > is open to the public internet > - Published on a web page intended for public access (for example > this could cover opt-in conference attendee lists and emails > that conference presenters voluntarily place in their slides). What about properly formatted patches (with From and SoB) sent to the maintainer, without copying any mailing lists? To me, a patch sent to a maintainer is obviously sent for inclusion in the kernel. > - (I am guessing the above covers 97% or more of possible public > sources, but maybe there are some more common sources.) > > I'm sure that the professionals that deal with information privacy > could provide better wording for the above list. I am but an > amateur in that field. > > Anything else collected by the project would not be considered public. > For example, an email address provided in an email sent to me and not > copied to any mail list would not be public. -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com