From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> To: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com> Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>, Tech Board Discuss <Tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org>, "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] TAB non-nomination Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 19:18:00 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <3b861369-0fc0-c746-4b1b-047ce903cc30@gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <0F1E6845-9F6D-46E2-BB52-8B0C2D8103C6@fb.com> On 11/10/18 11:15 AM, Chris Mason wrote: > > > On 9 Nov 2018, at 11:54, Frank Rowand wrote: > >> On 11/8/18 7:30 PM, Chris Mason wrote: >>> On 8 Nov 2018, at 16:04, James Bottomley wrote: >>>> >>>> Hind sight, though is always perfect. At the time, as a TAB member, >>>> all you saw was a panic driven by both Linus and the Linux >>>> Foundation >>>> that we needed an updated Kernel CoC ASAP, like today. >>> >>> I think panic is the wrong word to attach to Linus' response, >>> especially >>> around the code of conduct. >>> >>>> >>>> The second mistake was picking the wrong CoC. [ ... ] >>>> >>>> The third mistake was dumping the fully formed CoC and a later >>>> update >>>> into the tree with little to no community input >>> >> >>> The update was entirely based on community input. >> >> I am going to try to parse that sentence very carefully and narrowly. >> >> If you are saying that the update (that is, >> code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst) >> then I would agree that the document appears to have been created >> based on community input. But that is merely a conjecture on my part >> since the document was created in a small closed group. >> >> If you are saying that the creation of >> code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst >> was done in a process that was open and visible to the community, then >> I would disagree. I don't know if this is what you meant to convey, >> but it is very easy to interpret the sentence in this way. >> > > Ted's earlier reply has a good summary, but the part I want to underline > is that we sought out people who strongly disagreed with us, and we did > our best to understand their concerns. It was important to me that we > give people a private channel to express themselves, especially > considering that the topic at hand was behavior on public lists. OK. So the update was done in an opaque closed fashion, which involved soliciting input from some unknown fraction of the community. Do I understand that correctly? And I think it would be fair to say that the people who created the update were probably aware of the comments of a much larger group of people who had participated in the threads on various email lists, and also I suspect the comments threads on the related lwn articles. So likely also based on input from a (probably) larger fraction of the community who had been willing to publicly comment. So based on community input, but the document was not reviewed by the broader community, or accepted by the broader community. Note that my opinion is that code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst is a step in a positive direction. I'm just disappointed that it was not submitted through the normal process of review (and no, sending a patch to the mail list on Saturday and merging the patch two days later on Monday is not normal review, especially when some people were traveling to OSS Europe, ELC Europe, and the Maintainers Summit that weekend). -Frank > It was a tradeoff, but I was really happy with the number of people who > participated who might otherwise have stayed out of the discussion > completely. > > -chris >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> To: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com> Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>, Tech Board Discuss <Tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org>, "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] TAB non-nomination Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 19:18:00 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <3b861369-0fc0-c746-4b1b-047ce903cc30@gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <0F1E6845-9F6D-46E2-BB52-8B0C2D8103C6@fb.com> On 11/10/18 11:15 AM, Chris Mason wrote: > > > On 9 Nov 2018, at 11:54, Frank Rowand wrote: > >> On 11/8/18 7:30 PM, Chris Mason wrote: >>> On 8 Nov 2018, at 16:04, James Bottomley wrote: >>>> >>>> Hind sight, though is always perfect. At the time, as a TAB member, >>>> all you saw was a panic driven by both Linus and the Linux >>>> Foundation >>>> that we needed an updated Kernel CoC ASAP, like today. >>> >>> I think panic is the wrong word to attach to Linus' response, >>> especially >>> around the code of conduct. >>> >>>> >>>> The second mistake was picking the wrong CoC. [ ... ] >>>> >>>> The third mistake was dumping the fully formed CoC and a later >>>> update >>>> into the tree with little to no community input >>> >> >>> The update was entirely based on community input. >> >> I am going to try to parse that sentence very carefully and narrowly. >> >> If you are saying that the update (that is, >> code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst) >> then I would agree that the document appears to have been created >> based on community input. But that is merely a conjecture on my part >> since the document was created in a small closed group. >> >> If you are saying that the creation of >> code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst >> was done in a process that was open and visible to the community, then >> I would disagree. I don't know if this is what you meant to convey, >> but it is very easy to interpret the sentence in this way. >> > > Ted's earlier reply has a good summary, but the part I want to underline > is that we sought out people who strongly disagreed with us, and we did > our best to understand their concerns. It was important to me that we > give people a private channel to express themselves, especially > considering that the topic at hand was behavior on public lists. OK. So the update was done in an opaque closed fashion, which involved soliciting input from some unknown fraction of the community. Do I understand that correctly? And I think it would be fair to say that the people who created the update were probably aware of the comments of a much larger group of people who had participated in the threads on various email lists, and also I suspect the comments threads on the related lwn articles. So likely also based on input from a (probably) larger fraction of the community who had been willing to publicly comment. So based on community input, but the document was not reviewed by the broader community, or accepted by the broader community. Note that my opinion is that code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst is a step in a positive direction. I'm just disappointed that it was not submitted through the normal process of review (and no, sending a patch to the mail list on Saturday and merging the patch two days later on Monday is not normal review, especially when some people were traveling to OSS Europe, ELC Europe, and the Maintainers Summit that weekend). -Frank > It was a tradeoff, but I was really happy with the number of people who > participated who might otherwise have stayed out of the discussion > completely. > > -chris >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-11 3:18 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-11-09 0:04 [Ksummit-discuss] TAB non-nomination James Bottomley 2018-11-09 0:04 ` [Tech-board-discuss] " James Bottomley 2018-11-09 0:29 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Steven Rostedt 2018-11-09 0:29 ` Steven Rostedt 2018-11-09 3:30 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Chris Mason 2018-11-09 3:30 ` [Tech-board-discuss] " Chris Mason 2018-11-09 17:52 ` Shuah Khan 2018-11-09 17:52 ` [Tech-board-discuss] " Shuah Khan 2018-11-09 19:03 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2018-11-09 19:03 ` [Tech-board-discuss] " Theodore Y. Ts'o 2018-11-09 19:23 ` Joe Perches 2018-11-09 19:23 ` [Tech-board-discuss] " Joe Perches 2018-11-10 21:21 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2018-11-10 21:21 ` [Tech-board-discuss] " Theodore Y. Ts'o 2018-11-10 21:47 ` Joe Perches 2018-11-10 21:47 ` [Tech-board-discuss] " Joe Perches 2018-11-12 17:15 ` James Morris 2018-11-12 17:15 ` [Tech-board-discuss] " James Morris 2018-11-09 20:17 ` [Ksummit-discuss] better hot-topic discussion processes was: " Jason Cooper 2018-11-09 20:17 ` [Tech-board-discuss] " Jason Cooper 2018-11-10 19:26 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Chris Mason 2018-11-10 19:26 ` [Tech-board-discuss] " Chris Mason 2018-11-10 21:55 ` Jason Cooper 2018-11-10 21:55 ` [Tech-board-discuss] " Jason Cooper 2018-11-14 18:25 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-11-14 18:25 ` [Tech-board-discuss] " Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-11-09 19:54 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] " Frank Rowand 2018-11-09 19:54 ` [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] " Frank Rowand 2018-11-10 19:15 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] " Chris Mason 2018-11-10 19:15 ` [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] " Chris Mason 2018-11-10 21:59 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] " Jason Cooper 2018-11-10 21:59 ` [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] " Jason Cooper 2018-11-11 3:18 ` Frank Rowand [this message] 2018-11-11 3:18 ` Frank Rowand 2018-11-11 5:57 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] " Theodore Y. Ts'o 2018-11-11 5:57 ` [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] " Theodore Y. Ts'o 2018-11-12 4:44 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] " NeilBrown 2018-11-12 4:44 ` [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] " NeilBrown 2018-11-12 4:54 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] " NeilBrown 2018-11-12 4:54 ` [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] " NeilBrown 2018-11-12 17:00 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] " Steven Rostedt 2018-11-12 17:00 ` [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] " Steven Rostedt 2018-11-13 16:49 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] " Jani Nikula 2018-11-13 16:49 ` [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] " Jani Nikula 2018-11-13 19:59 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] " Laurent Pinchart 2018-11-13 19:59 ` [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] " Laurent Pinchart 2018-11-14 17:28 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] " Mark Brown 2018-11-14 17:28 ` [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] " Mark Brown 2018-11-09 17:19 ` Stephen Hemminger 2018-11-09 17:19 ` [Tech-board-discuss] " Stephen Hemminger
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=3b861369-0fc0-c746-4b1b-047ce903cc30@gmail.com \ --to=frowand.list@gmail.com \ --cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \ --cc=Tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org \ --cc=clm@fb.com \ --cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.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.