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 3933B7A9 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 04:16:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0078.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.78]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDEB3E6 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 04:16:25 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <23e41205115d317908c63d37a20ee316b44a8404.camel@perches.com> From: Joe Perches To: Greg Kroah-Hartman , James Bottomley Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:16:20 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20181022211025.GA8911@kroah.com> References: <1540066514.3464.22.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181022211025.GA8911@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 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, 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