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 19CB1C433F4 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:07:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD0A21532 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:07:30 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BAD0A21532 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.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 S2390068AbeIUS4Q (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2018 14:56:16 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40830 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728098AbeIUS4Q (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2018 14:56:16 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B87BE88E6D; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:07:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-116-83.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.83]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 703068750A; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:07:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=vm-rhel7) by redhat.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1g3L9a-0003O6-CG; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:07:26 -0400 From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) To: Rik van Riel Cc: Edward Cree , Olof Johansson , Jonathan Corbet , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it. References: <20180919081812.020f19e3@lwn.net> <72dadc76-44fe-ecb5-e142-0a9129082c93@cantab.net> <93b77a9a-12c3-6f7d-d2c3-0e0d7875a28b@cantab.net> <589966d9cd0ddccc88f33fcb7975bb4464be7696.camel@surriel.com> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:07:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <589966d9cd0ddccc88f33fcb7975bb4464be7696.camel@surriel.com> (Rik van Riel's message of "Thu, 20 Sep 2018 21:48:01 -0400") Message-ID: <87zhwbj8xe.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:07:28 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rik van Riel writes: > [...] The goal of the code of conduct is to make the community > welcoming, and to help people with being a part of the Linux > community. [...] That may well be the goal. But the proper way to evaluate policy is not the laudability of its goals but its forseeable and/or actual effects. Is there any plan to evaluate the CoC empirically somehow to see if it accomplishes what its proponents hope? - FChE