From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> To: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [GIT PULL] code of conduct fixes for 4.19-rc8 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:01:17 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20181023090117.GF2103@sirena.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20181023070750.GB3068@localhost> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1388 bytes --] On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 08:07:50AM +0100, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:16:20PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > As James Bottomley has suggested multiple times, > > I'd much rather kernel development use the debian > > code of conduct verbatim than even this modified one. > > https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct > The Debian code of conduct doesn't do nearly as good a job of addressing > issues. (Debian also adopted that code of conduct back when such codes > weren't nearly as well understood or established.) Many people *in* > Debian, including supporters of their current CoC, have an interest in > improving it further and/or adopting a more well-established one. It was recent enough that a lot of the complaints people might have these days actually got levelled at Debian at the time it was introduced, and those divergences were for the most part the result of deliberate decisions. A big part of this was based on the knowledge that there's a particular tendency to rules lawyering in parts of the Debian community, both generally and specifically with the sorts of behavioural stuff that codes of conduct are designed to address (there's been examples of people trying to push the limits there before, it's not just a theoretical concern). It's definitely an old code of conduct and could be improved but that's not the only thing going on there. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> To: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [GIT PULL] code of conduct fixes for 4.19-rc8 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:01:17 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20181023090117.GF2103@sirena.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20181023070750.GB3068@localhost> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1388 bytes --] On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 08:07:50AM +0100, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:16:20PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > As James Bottomley has suggested multiple times, > > I'd much rather kernel development use the debian > > code of conduct verbatim than even this modified one. > > https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct > The Debian code of conduct doesn't do nearly as good a job of addressing > issues. (Debian also adopted that code of conduct back when such codes > weren't nearly as well understood or established.) Many people *in* > Debian, including supporters of their current CoC, have an interest in > improving it further and/or adopting a more well-established one. It was recent enough that a lot of the complaints people might have these days actually got levelled at Debian at the time it was introduced, and those divergences were for the most part the result of deliberate decisions. A big part of this was based on the knowledge that there's a particular tendency to rules lawyering in parts of the Debian community, both generally and specifically with the sorts of behavioural stuff that codes of conduct are designed to address (there's been examples of people trying to push the limits there before, it's not just a theoretical concern). It's definitely an old code of conduct and could be improved but that's not the only thing going on there. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-23 9:01 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-10-20 20:15 [Ksummit-discuss] [GIT PULL] code of conduct fixes for 4.19-rc8 James Bottomley 2018-10-20 20:15 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-22 21:10 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Greg Kroah-Hartman 2018-10-22 21:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2018-10-23 4:16 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Joe Perches 2018-10-23 6:05 ` Randy Dunlap 2018-10-23 6:10 ` Joe Perches 2018-10-23 7:07 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-23 7:07 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-23 9:01 ` Mark Brown [this message] 2018-10-23 9:01 ` Mark Brown 2018-10-23 9:09 ` James Bottomley
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20181023090117.GF2103@sirena.org.uk \ --to=broonie@kernel.org \ --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \ --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \ --cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.