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

[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 othersâ 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


See you in Edinburgh,

-Frank


> 
> James
> 
> 
> 
>