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 B23A4B1E for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 23:23:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com (out01.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.231]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E1C934F for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 23:23:50 +0000 (UTC) From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: James Bottomley References: <1539202053.12644.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:23:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1539202053.12644.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com> (James Bottomley's message of "Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:07:33 -0700") Message-ID: <87efcxtmhf.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: linux-kernel , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 0/3] code of conduct fixes List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , James Bottomley writes: > Resend to show accumulated tags and also to add a third patch listing > the TAB as the reporting point as a few people seem to want. If it > gets the same level of support, I'll send it in with the other two. There is also: > Our Responsibilities > ==================== > > Maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior > and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to > any instances of unacceptable behavior. > > Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject > comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are > not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any > contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, > offensive, or harmful. Which is very problematic. a) In append only logs like git we can not edit history. Making it a mainters responsibility to edit the history, to do the impossible is a problem. b) There are no responsibilities of for people who are not Maintainers. That is another problem. c) The entire tone of the reponsibilities section is out of line with a community where there are no enforcement powers only the power to accept or not accept a patch. Only the power to persuade not to enforce. Overall in the discussions I have heard people talking about persuading, educating, and not feeding trolls. Nowhere have I heard people talking about policing the community which I understand that responsiblity section to be talking about. Increasingly I am getting the feeling that this document does not the linux development community. Perhaps a revert and trying to come up with better language from scratch would be better. I don't know how to rephrase that reponsibility section but if we don't go with the revert something looks like it need sot be done there. Eric 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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 98582C43441 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 23:23:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E97320870 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 23:23:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4E97320870 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=xmission.com 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 S1726693AbeJKGsO (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2018 02:48:14 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:59561 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725971AbeJKGsN (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2018 02:48:13 -0400 Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51]) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1gANpU-0003ya-UR; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 17:23:48 -0600 Received: from 67-3-154-154.omah.qwest.net ([67.3.154.154] helo=x220.xmission.com) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1gANpF-0006h9-H0; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 17:23:48 -0600 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: James Bottomley Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel References: <1539202053.12644.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:23:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1539202053.12644.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com> (James Bottomley's message of "Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:07:33 -0700") Message-ID: <87efcxtmhf.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1gANpF-0006h9-H0;;;mid=<87efcxtmhf.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=67.3.154.154;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX19/6qA/LX4yBPgvHTgUQIdzoAuDJCWX9Vw= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.3.154.154 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 0/3] code of conduct fixes X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org James Bottomley writes: > Resend to show accumulated tags and also to add a third patch listing > the TAB as the reporting point as a few people seem to want. If it > gets the same level of support, I'll send it in with the other two. There is also: > Our Responsibilities > ==================== > > Maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior > and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to > any instances of unacceptable behavior. > > Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject > comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are > not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any > contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, > offensive, or harmful. Which is very problematic. a) In append only logs like git we can not edit history. Making it a mainters responsibility to edit the history, to do the impossible is a problem. b) There are no responsibilities of for people who are not Maintainers. That is another problem. c) The entire tone of the reponsibilities section is out of line with a community where there are no enforcement powers only the power to accept or not accept a patch. Only the power to persuade not to enforce. Overall in the discussions I have heard people talking about persuading, educating, and not feeding trolls. Nowhere have I heard people talking about policing the community which I understand that responsiblity section to be talking about. Increasingly I am getting the feeling that this document does not the linux development community. Perhaps a revert and trying to come up with better language from scratch would be better. I don't know how to rephrase that reponsibility section but if we don't go with the revert something looks like it need sot be done there. Eric