From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3E5677F9 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 18:12:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D6C07E3 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 18:12:00 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1539022317.4344.17.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Tim.Bird@sony.com, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 11:11:57 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1538861851.4088.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1538883209.4088.14.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1539007780.4344.3.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 17:58 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Bottomley > > > > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 13:51 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: James Bottomley > > > > On Sat, 2018-10-06 at 21:43 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: James Bottomley > > > > > > > > > > > > Significant concern has been expressed about the > > > > > > responsibilities outlined in the enforcement clause of the > > > > > > new > > > > > > code of conduct.  Since there is concern that this becomes > > > > > > binding on the release of the 4.19 kernel, strip the > > > > > > enforcement clauses to give the community time to consider > > > > > > and > > > > > > debate how this should be handled. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > >  Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------- > > > > > > ------ > > > > > >  1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 > > > > > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social > > > > > > media account, or acting as an appointed representative at > > > > > > an > > > > > > online or offline event. Representation of a project may be > > > > > >  further defined and clarified by project maintainers. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Enforcement > > > > > > -=========== > > > > > > - > > > > > > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable > > > > > > behavior may be > > > > > > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) > > > > > > at > > > > > > -. All complaints will be > > > > > > reviewed and > > > > > > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed > > > > > > necessary and > > > > > > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to > > > > > > maintain > > > > > > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > > > > > incident.  Further details of > > > > > > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. > > > > > > > > > > I think it's OK to leave the above section, as it doesn't > > > > > speak > > > > > to enforcement, but rather is just a set of reporting > > > > > instructions, with an assurance of confidentiality.  This > > > > > seems > > > > > to me not to be the objectionable part of this section. > > > > > (IOW, I would omit this removal from the patch). > > > > > > > > So I did think about that, but it struck me that with both > > > > paragraphs removed, the current CoC is very similar to the > > > > status quo: namely every subsystem handles their own issues and > > > > that's formalised by the "Our Responsibilities" section.  That > > > > also makes me think that whether we want a centralised channel > > > > of reporting or enforcement and what it should be also ought to > > > > be part of the debate.  The TAB was created to channel > > > > community technical input into the Linux Foundation.  That's > > > > not to say it can't provide the reporting and arbitration > > > > structure, but if we're going to do it right we should debate > > > > the expansion of its duties (and powers). > > > > > > When the Code of Conflict was adopted 3 years ago, we already > > > created the central reporting mechanism, so I actually think > > > leaving (ie including) the above paragraph is closer to the > > > status quo.  I think it's the expanded powers and duties (or > > > perception thereof) that are causing concern and I think debating > > > those to clarify intent, and adopting changes as needed  to > > > ameliorate concerns is worthwhile. > > If we want to go back to the status quo, then a plain revert is the > > patch series I should submit. > > Let me try to be more clear.  I don't want to go back to the status > quo. I was saying that if we keep this document, but omit the central > reporting mechanism, that is a large departure from the status quo, > because the Code of Conflict already established that.  And I think > that having an ombudsman-type role somewhere in the community > is beneficial. The purpose of this patch is not to be the final point but to take us up to a useful starting point for Shuah's CoC debate proposal at the kernel summit (and beyond). Shuah asked that I clarify this in the commit message, so I will in v2. > I believe parts of the Code of Conduct are an improvement over the > Code of Conflict, so my personal preference would be to keep it > and try to adjust it moving forward.  I think your patches, with > clear suggestions for improvements (or for deletions in the case > where we want more debate on particular sections before adopting > them) is a good approach, and I like that process as opposed to > starting over from scratch. OK, so you're happy with the current patch as the starting not the ending point? > > > I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the TAB will end up > > > performing a mediator role to smooth hurt feelings and remind and > > > encourage improved communication - very similar to what we've > > > done in the past.  I really believe that bans will continue to be > > > very few and far between, as they have been historically (I can > > > only think of 3 in the past decade.) > > > > That might very well be the position the discussion arrives at; > > however, I really think making the process fully transparent this > > time requires not prejudging the outcome. > > I don't understand your point here.  Can you elaborate? Yes: I could foresee an outcome where the kernel community decides to vest CoC enforcement in a different body from the TAB, or even in no body but an informal maintainers list. I'm not saying that *will* happen, merely that it's an outcome that should not be foreclosed at this point. James