[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] docs: Add a QEMU Code of Conduct and Conflict Resolution Pol
Re: [PATCH] docs: Add a QEMU Code of Conduct and Conflict Resolution Policy document
Tue, 13 Apr 2021 13:41:51 +0200
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
Peter Maydell <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 11:23, Andreas Färber <email@example.com> 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
Let's not worry about that, okay?