Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v3 1/3] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses

From: Alexandre Belloni
Date: Wed Oct 17 2018 - 15:26:07 EST


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