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 5408EB8E for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:07:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.196]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94F3E737 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:07:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:07:50 +0100 From: Josh Triplett To: Joe Perches Message-ID: <20181023070750.GB3068@localhost> References: <1540066514.3464.22.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181022211025.GA8911@kroah.com> <23e41205115d317908c63d37a20ee316b44a8404.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <23e41205115d317908c63d37a20ee316b44a8404.camel@perches.com> Cc: James Bottomley , linux-kernel , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [GIT PULL] code of conduct fixes for 4.19-rc8 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:16:20PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 22:10 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 01:15:14PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > This is the series of patches which has been discussed on both ksummit- > > > discuss and linux-kernel for the past few weeks. As Shuah said when > > > kicking off the process, it's designed as a starting point for the next > > > phase of the discussion, not as the end point, so it's only really a > > > set of minor updates to further that goal. > > > > > > The merger of the three patches to show the combined effect is attached > > > below. However, Greg recently posted the next phase of the discussion, > > > so people will be asking what the merger of the series looks like. > > > Ignoring the non-CoC documents, I think it looks like this > > > > Sorry for not responding sooner for this, travel and the meeting today > > took up my time. > > > > Anyway, as we discussed today in the Maintainers summit, let's leave the > > Code of Conduct text alone for now. It matches what "upstream" has with > > the exception of removing that one paragraph. If you have issues with > > the wording in it, please work with upstream to fix the issues there as > > hundreds of other projects will benefit with your changes if they are > > really needed. > > Given the different development models, that's not > a very compelling argument. > > 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F2AC46475 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:07:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE912064C for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:07:57 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7DE912064C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=joshtriplett.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727626AbeJWPaB (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:30:01 -0400 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:34551 "EHLO relay4-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727023AbeJWPaB (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:30:01 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 167.98.65.38 Received: from localhost (unknown [167.98.65.38]) (Authenticated sender: josh@joshtriplett.org) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CE6EE0006; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:07:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:07:50 +0100 From: Josh Triplett To: Joe Perches Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , James Bottomley , linux-kernel , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [GIT PULL] code of conduct fixes for 4.19-rc8 Message-ID: <20181023070750.GB3068@localhost> References: <1540066514.3464.22.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181022211025.GA8911@kroah.com> <23e41205115d317908c63d37a20ee316b44a8404.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <23e41205115d317908c63d37a20ee316b44a8404.camel@perches.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:16:20PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 22:10 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 01:15:14PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > This is the series of patches which has been discussed on both ksummit- > > > discuss and linux-kernel for the past few weeks. As Shuah said when > > > kicking off the process, it's designed as a starting point for the next > > > phase of the discussion, not as the end point, so it's only really a > > > set of minor updates to further that goal. > > > > > > The merger of the three patches to show the combined effect is attached > > > below. However, Greg recently posted the next phase of the discussion, > > > so people will be asking what the merger of the series looks like. > > > Ignoring the non-CoC documents, I think it looks like this > > > > Sorry for not responding sooner for this, travel and the meeting today > > took up my time. > > > > Anyway, as we discussed today in the Maintainers summit, let's leave the > > Code of Conduct text alone for now. It matches what "upstream" has with > > the exception of removing that one paragraph. If you have issues with > > the wording in it, please work with upstream to fix the issues there as > > hundreds of other projects will benefit with your changes if they are > > really needed. > > Given the different development models, that's not > a very compelling argument. > > 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.