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 7FB6E223E for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 21:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB9E57E2 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 21:15:04 +0000 (UTC) From: NeilBrown To: Josh Triplett Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 08:14:51 +1100 In-Reply-To: <20181024121622.GA10942@localhost> References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com> <87y3ar80ac.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181021222608.GA24845@localhost> <875zxt919d.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181024121622.GA10942@localhost> Message-ID: <87ftwt6850.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Cc: Mishi Choudhary , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 24 2018, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 07:26:06AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 21 2018, Josh Triplett wrote: >>=20 >> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 08:20:11AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: >> >> I call on you, Greg: >> >> - to abandon this divisive attempt to impose a "Code of Conduct" >> >> - to revert 8a104f8b5867c68 >> >> - to return to your core competence of building a great team around >> >> a great kernel >> >>=20 >> >> #Isupportreversion >> >>=20 >> >> I call on the community to consider what *does* need to be said, about >> >> conduct, to people outside the community and who have recently joined. >> >> What is the document that you would have liked to have read as you we= re >> >> starting out? It is all too long ago for me to remember clearly, and= so >> >> much has changed. >> > >> > The document I would have liked to have read when starting out is >> > currently checked into the source tree in >> > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst . >>=20 >> I'm curious - what would you have gained by reading that document? > > I would have then had rather less of a pervasive feeling of "if I make > even a single mistake I get made an example of in ways that will feed > people's quotes files for years to come". Thanks for your reply. Certainly feeling safe is important, and having clear statements that the community values and promotes psychological safety is valuable. The old "code of conflict" said If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable.=20 would you have not found this a strong enough statement to ward off that pervasive feeling? In the current code, would The "Our Pledge" section have been sufficient, or do you think the other sections would have actually helped you? > > See > https://hbr.org/2017/08/high-performing-teams-need-psychological-safety-h= eres-how-to-create-it > for more on the benefits of that. Thanks for the link. NeilBrown --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEG8Yp69OQ2HB7X0l6Oeye3VZigbkFAlvSMkwACgkQOeye3VZi gblbqxAAxHLxaEPR964HG/HkxGC7q+P2Eve9bvQII+JykbmmvyUrwmAz97vvk/jo yKR5eQWsm/zNQPnLQCHQilF+v35dtE0qOqHCEqcza6aJepB1lTbwx5af2o5ZnkNk KA9SSLcfdyYfP8Pq8GpmlS/c+53qNt6OIYhYJngudxbP6VpgysRl79vaAcEHuVfi 6ToYJzKMm/ZsJLqOQuaTQsvhEmF/e6yrdXFbCCQQzuZAjnwvKKMUkSGpnRaux3wi 1GTlRJflJKr1rI9XWQptRwfJu0esrH00q2BxuLc2UQqO4FcDpLwpDlJUecXVoClm 6lXE7cV/pjq7IghfpsCplLHWd7e/3xJWvc4xe9g8jHTbqnTkeCGDAZLEaKPCBTXi CSXIoVV/2i80wNONQgUm3OUYg4MXcoOtp/lr/eS0c6OO3xa8BLIKFvgtKjDKxaZP yGfe3viXpt1IyRlnli80+79HS4YNc2abM/hQwFhV2eRc04M5nZNfZHp36xVwyYoA 5qO906UTcBxW2+mz5aY4Zc2PRT6keBkHRAKQuJuQuL1yq/d9oM9rPq/9L+3K2aMS 8YjlU0Y76lA4B4GKBJ5/nyunLxxYDb5ZM2/QJSXOqGx76pJyTWfki9okjLLyc+Hu t2O6b+GoQts7rNwj4G6KPL+Q104u1DVQBX9dClAuVoRwk4TLUQc= =qLBs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- 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 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 399DDC46475 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 21:15:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBDDE2054F for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 21:15:06 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EBDDE2054F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=brown.name 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 S1726556AbeJZFtX (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2018 01:49:23 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54042 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726075AbeJZFtW (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2018 01:49:22 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EEE4AF0D; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 21:15:02 +0000 (UTC) From: NeilBrown To: Josh Triplett Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 08:14:51 +1100 Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel , Linus Torvalds , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Mishi Choudhary Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document In-Reply-To: <20181024121622.GA10942@localhost> References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com> <87y3ar80ac.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181021222608.GA24845@localhost> <875zxt919d.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181024121622.GA10942@localhost> Message-ID: <87ftwt6850.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 24 2018, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 07:26:06AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 21 2018, Josh Triplett wrote: >>=20 >> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 08:20:11AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: >> >> I call on you, Greg: >> >> - to abandon this divisive attempt to impose a "Code of Conduct" >> >> - to revert 8a104f8b5867c68 >> >> - to return to your core competence of building a great team around >> >> a great kernel >> >>=20 >> >> #Isupportreversion >> >>=20 >> >> I call on the community to consider what *does* need to be said, about >> >> conduct, to people outside the community and who have recently joined. >> >> What is the document that you would have liked to have read as you we= re >> >> starting out? It is all too long ago for me to remember clearly, and= so >> >> much has changed. >> > >> > The document I would have liked to have read when starting out is >> > currently checked into the source tree in >> > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst . >>=20 >> I'm curious - what would you have gained by reading that document? > > I would have then had rather less of a pervasive feeling of "if I make > even a single mistake I get made an example of in ways that will feed > people's quotes files for years to come". Thanks for your reply. Certainly feeling safe is important, and having clear statements that the community values and promotes psychological safety is valuable. The old "code of conflict" said If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable.=20 would you have not found this a strong enough statement to ward off that pervasive feeling? In the current code, would The "Our Pledge" section have been sufficient, or do you think the other sections would have actually helped you? > > See > https://hbr.org/2017/08/high-performing-teams-need-psychological-safety-h= eres-how-to-create-it > for more on the benefits of that. Thanks for the link. NeilBrown --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEG8Yp69OQ2HB7X0l6Oeye3VZigbkFAlvSMkwACgkQOeye3VZi gblbqxAAxHLxaEPR964HG/HkxGC7q+P2Eve9bvQII+JykbmmvyUrwmAz97vvk/jo yKR5eQWsm/zNQPnLQCHQilF+v35dtE0qOqHCEqcza6aJepB1lTbwx5af2o5ZnkNk KA9SSLcfdyYfP8Pq8GpmlS/c+53qNt6OIYhYJngudxbP6VpgysRl79vaAcEHuVfi 6ToYJzKMm/ZsJLqOQuaTQsvhEmF/e6yrdXFbCCQQzuZAjnwvKKMUkSGpnRaux3wi 1GTlRJflJKr1rI9XWQptRwfJu0esrH00q2BxuLc2UQqO4FcDpLwpDlJUecXVoClm 6lXE7cV/pjq7IghfpsCplLHWd7e/3xJWvc4xe9g8jHTbqnTkeCGDAZLEaKPCBTXi CSXIoVV/2i80wNONQgUm3OUYg4MXcoOtp/lr/eS0c6OO3xa8BLIKFvgtKjDKxaZP yGfe3viXpt1IyRlnli80+79HS4YNc2abM/hQwFhV2eRc04M5nZNfZHp36xVwyYoA 5qO906UTcBxW2+mz5aY4Zc2PRT6keBkHRAKQuJuQuL1yq/d9oM9rPq/9L+3K2aMS 8YjlU0Y76lA4B4GKBJ5/nyunLxxYDb5ZM2/QJSXOqGx76pJyTWfki9okjLLyc+Hu t2O6b+GoQts7rNwj4G6KPL+Q104u1DVQBX9dClAuVoRwk4TLUQc= =qLBs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--