From: "jonsmirl@gmail.com" <jonsmirl@gmail.com> To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 13:50:57 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAKON4OyztjgTp_AJcrUjpkmT36RY4r-jMzNG75+riOy8U=PTgQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1538934030.4010.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 1:42 PM James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-10-07 at 19:11 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley > > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > > We've had several threads discussing potential changes to the code > > > of > > > conduct but Mauro is the only person to have proposed an actual > > > patch. > > > In order to move the debate on, I'm presenting two patches, one to > > > fix > > > the email problem Mauro identified and the other to strip the > > > enforcement section pending community discussion as Shuah > > > suggested. > > > > > > I'll take responsibility for collecting any tags people want to add > > > (review/ack/sign off, etc) and sending the patch in as a signed > > > pull > > > request before 4.19 final if they get enough community support. > > > > > > Note, I've sent both patches in as a series to facilitate review > > > and > > > discussion, but they are separable if one is looked on with less > > > favour > > > than the other. > > > > > > It was also a bit unclear which list to send this to, but I finally > > > settled on linux-kernel as the catch all and ksummit-discuss since > > > that's where most of the current discussion is. I can add other > > > lists > > > as people suggest them. > > > > Personally I'm not happy at all with how the new code of conduct was > > rushed in, least because I still don't understand why it happened, > > but also for all the other reasons we've discussed here in the past > > few weeks. As far as I know none of the usual open source friendly lawyers have reviewed and commented. I suspect this document is on shaky legal ground and it needs a vetting from the legal community. For example, is the CoC simply guidance or it is a legal contract? I don't know enough about the law to answer that. > > > > For all the same reasons I don't think it's a good idea to now rush > > in a few edits, just a few days before the 4.19 release. In my > > experience, and I've discussed code of conducts and their enforcement > > for years even before we implemented the fd.o/dri-devel one, mailing > > lists aren't the best place to have this discussion. Definitely not > > under the time pressure of just a few days to get it all sorted. I > > hope that we can have these discussiones at the maintainer summit and > > kernel summit/plumbers, and will have more clarity in a few weeks > > (probably more likely months). > > > > But I also understand that there's lots of people (me included) who > > don't want to ship a release with the code of conduct in it's current > > in-between state. I think adding a disclaimer at the top, along the > > lines of > > > > "Please note that this code of conduct and it's enforcement are still > > under discussion." > > I don't disagree with the position, but eliminating our old code of > conduct in favour of another we cast doubt on with this disclaimer > effectively leaves us with nothing at all, which seems to be a worse > situation. In that case, I think reverting the CoC commit > (8a104f8b5867c682) and then restarting the replacement process is > better than adding a disclaimer to the new one. > > My preference is to try to fix what we have instead of starting over, > but it's not a strong one, so if people want to go for the revert > instead of the amendment, I'd be happy to redo the patch series with > that. > > James > > > > would make this clear and ameliorate the concerns from many people > > about the open questions we still have, at least for now. This would > > give us the time to discuss all the details properly and with all due > > deliberation. I'm travelling next week, so not the right guy to push > > this, but I'd be happy to ack such a patch (or something along the > > same lines). I also believe that this statement is undisputed enough > > that we can gather widespread support for it in the few days left > > until 4.19 ships to make it happen. > > > > Thanks, Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "jonsmirl@gmail.com" <jonsmirl@gmail.com> To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> Cc: daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 13:50:57 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAKON4OyztjgTp_AJcrUjpkmT36RY4r-jMzNG75+riOy8U=PTgQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1538934030.4010.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 1:42 PM James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-10-07 at 19:11 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley > > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > > We've had several threads discussing potential changes to the code > > > of > > > conduct but Mauro is the only person to have proposed an actual > > > patch. > > > In order to move the debate on, I'm presenting two patches, one to > > > fix > > > the email problem Mauro identified and the other to strip the > > > enforcement section pending community discussion as Shuah > > > suggested. > > > > > > I'll take responsibility for collecting any tags people want to add > > > (review/ack/sign off, etc) and sending the patch in as a signed > > > pull > > > request before 4.19 final if they get enough community support. > > > > > > Note, I've sent both patches in as a series to facilitate review > > > and > > > discussion, but they are separable if one is looked on with less > > > favour > > > than the other. > > > > > > It was also a bit unclear which list to send this to, but I finally > > > settled on linux-kernel as the catch all and ksummit-discuss since > > > that's where most of the current discussion is. I can add other > > > lists > > > as people suggest them. > > > > Personally I'm not happy at all with how the new code of conduct was > > rushed in, least because I still don't understand why it happened, > > but also for all the other reasons we've discussed here in the past > > few weeks. As far as I know none of the usual open source friendly lawyers have reviewed and commented. I suspect this document is on shaky legal ground and it needs a vetting from the legal community. For example, is the CoC simply guidance or it is a legal contract? I don't know enough about the law to answer that. > > > > For all the same reasons I don't think it's a good idea to now rush > > in a few edits, just a few days before the 4.19 release. In my > > experience, and I've discussed code of conducts and their enforcement > > for years even before we implemented the fd.o/dri-devel one, mailing > > lists aren't the best place to have this discussion. Definitely not > > under the time pressure of just a few days to get it all sorted. I > > hope that we can have these discussiones at the maintainer summit and > > kernel summit/plumbers, and will have more clarity in a few weeks > > (probably more likely months). > > > > But I also understand that there's lots of people (me included) who > > don't want to ship a release with the code of conduct in it's current > > in-between state. I think adding a disclaimer at the top, along the > > lines of > > > > "Please note that this code of conduct and it's enforcement are still > > under discussion." > > I don't disagree with the position, but eliminating our old code of > conduct in favour of another we cast doubt on with this disclaimer > effectively leaves us with nothing at all, which seems to be a worse > situation. In that case, I think reverting the CoC commit > (8a104f8b5867c682) and then restarting the replacement process is > better than adding a disclaimer to the new one. > > My preference is to try to fix what we have instead of starting over, > but it's not a strong one, so if people want to go for the revert > instead of the amendment, I'd be happy to redo the patch series with > that. > > James > > > > would make this clear and ameliorate the concerns from many people > > about the open questions we still have, at least for now. This would > > give us the time to discuss all the details properly and with all due > > deliberation. I'm travelling next week, so not the right guy to push > > this, but I'd be happy to ack such a patch (or something along the > > same lines). I also believe that this statement is undisputed enough > > that we can gather widespread support for it in the few days left > > until 4.19 ships to make it happen. > > > > Thanks, Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-07 17:51 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 93+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-10-06 21:35 [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes James Bottomley 2018-10-06 21:35 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-06 21:36 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses James Bottomley 2018-10-06 21:36 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-07 8:25 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-07 8:25 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-07 15:25 ` Shuah Khan 2018-10-07 15:25 ` Shuah Khan 2018-10-07 9:04 ` Daniel Vetter 2018-10-07 9:04 ` Daniel Vetter 2018-10-07 9:54 ` Hannes Reinecke 2018-10-07 15:29 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-08 19:49 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-08 19:49 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-07 17:53 ` Guenter Roeck 2018-10-07 22:25 ` Dave Airlie 2018-10-07 22:25 ` Dave Airlie 2018-10-07 22:56 ` Al Viro 2018-10-07 23:02 ` Al Viro 2018-10-07 23:37 ` Dave Airlie 2018-10-08 10:14 ` Mark Brown 2018-10-08 10:14 ` Mark Brown 2018-10-08 19:32 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-08 19:32 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-08 17:05 ` Luck, Tony 2018-10-08 17:05 ` Luck, Tony 2018-10-08 14:08 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-10 16:36 ` Pavel Machek 2018-10-10 16:36 ` Pavel Machek 2018-10-08 15:20 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-08 15:20 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-08 15:30 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-08 19:23 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-08 19:23 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-08 19:57 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-09 10:55 ` Mark Brown 2018-10-09 18:29 ` Rainer Fiebig 2018-10-09 18:56 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-09 19:38 ` Laurent Pinchart 2018-10-09 19:38 ` Laurent Pinchart 2018-10-09 19:44 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-10 7:22 ` Rainer Fiebig 2018-10-10 5:52 ` Rainer Fiebig 2018-10-10 7:08 ` Rainer Fiebig 2018-10-08 19:24 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-08 19:24 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-10 20:48 ` Frank Rowand 2018-10-06 21:37 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion James Bottomley 2018-10-06 21:37 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-06 21:43 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Tim.Bird 2018-10-06 21:43 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-07 3:33 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-08 13:51 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-08 13:51 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-08 14:09 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-08 17:58 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-08 17:58 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-08 18:11 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-08 18:54 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-08 18:54 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-08 15:03 ` jonsmirl 2018-10-08 15:03 ` jonsmirl 2018-10-08 15:37 ` Alan Cox 2018-10-08 15:37 ` Alan Cox 2018-10-11 7:42 ` Dan Carpenter 2018-10-07 15:32 ` Shuah Khan 2018-10-07 15:32 ` Shuah Khan 2018-10-07 17:56 ` Guenter Roeck 2018-10-07 19:51 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-07 19:51 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-08 18:15 ` Chris Mason 2018-10-08 18:15 ` Chris Mason 2018-10-08 19:04 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Josh Triplett 2018-10-08 20:23 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-08 20:23 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-10 15:53 ` Alan Cox 2018-10-10 15:53 ` Alan Cox 2018-10-10 17:19 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-10 17:19 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-10 20:09 ` Alan Cox 2018-10-10 20:09 ` Alan Cox 2018-10-10 20:30 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-10 20:30 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-10 20:32 ` Dave Airlie 2018-10-07 17:11 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes Daniel Vetter 2018-10-07 17:11 ` Daniel Vetter 2018-10-07 17:40 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-07 17:50 ` jonsmirl [this message] 2018-10-07 17:50 ` jonsmirl 2018-10-07 17:52 ` Daniel Vetter 2018-10-10 16:12 ` Pavel Machek 2018-10-10 16:12 ` Pavel Machek 2018-10-10 16:25 ` Randy Dunlap
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='CAKON4OyztjgTp_AJcrUjpkmT36RY4r-jMzNG75+riOy8U=PTgQ@mail.gmail.com' \ --to=jonsmirl@gmail.com \ --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \ --cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.