Josh Triplett schrieb: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: >> Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: >>> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: >>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing >>>> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since >>>> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the >>>> patch >>>> process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected >>>> by >>>> the project to correct this ambiguity. >>> >>> Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other >>> questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . >>> >>> Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? >>> (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) >>> >> >> The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. >> The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a FAQ. >> Hm. >
> Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was > previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a common > understanding. > I don't know what that complicated problem was. The commit message is a bit vaque in that respect. But I bet that in the end it *was* simple. And it probably wasn't that people felt discriminated because of their "body size". I also think that people actually do share a common understanding. Otherwise *no* CoC would work - however explicit it would be. We're not that different after all. A CoC that needs a FAQ to be understood may create more problems that it solves. So long! Rainer Fiebig
