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 8962D7ACC for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:11:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mslow2.mail.gandi.net (mslow2.mail.gandi.net [217.70.178.242]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05C6C773 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:11:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay10.mail.gandi.net (unknown [217.70.178.230]) by mslow2.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263813A1454 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 21:04:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 12:04:36 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Chris Mason Message-ID: <20181008190435.GA3963@localhost> References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1538861851.4088.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: James Bottomley , linux-kernel , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.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, Oct 08, 2018 at 02:15:25PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > On 6 Oct 2018, at 17:37, James Bottomley wrote: > > 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. > > Even in the places where I don't agree with the discussion about what our > code of conduct should be, I love that we're having it. Removing the > enforcement clause basically goes back to the way things were. We'd be > recognizing that we know issues happen, and explicitly stating that when > serious events do happen, the community as a whole isn't committing to > helping. > > It's true there are a lot of questions about how the community resolves > problems and holds each other accountable for maintaining any code of > conduct. I think the enforcement section leaves us the room we need to > continue discussions and still make it clear that we're making an effort to > shift away from the harsh discussions in the past. Emphatically seconded. I absolutely agree that we should to work on the enforcement section over time; for instance, I agree that a dedicated team (ideally with some training) would be better than vesting this in a technical decision-making body. But I agree with Chris that we should not remove this entirely. And I don't think there's any special significance to this being in the 4.19 release as compared to an -rc or git HEAD.