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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT 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 EA1E5C64EB4 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 22:29:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B694320867 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 22:29:58 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B694320867 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-parisc-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727144AbeLAJkm (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2018 04:40:42 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:43859 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727018AbeLAJkl (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2018 04:40:41 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Nov 2018 14:29:53 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,300,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="294225952" Received: from jsakkine-mobl1.jf.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.241.225.27]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2018 14:29:51 -0800 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:29:51 -0800 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: James Bottomley , Davidlohr Bueso , Kees Cook , LKML , Amir Goldstein , Andrew Morton , Andy Shevchenko , Daniel Axtens , "David S. Miller" , Dominik Brodowski , Maling list - DRI developers , Eric Dumazet , federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it, Geert Uytterhoeven , Helge Deller , Joshua Kinard , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, Linux Media Mailing List , Linux MIPS Mailing List , Linux mtd , linux-parisc , Linux PM list , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com, Network Development , nouveau , Paolo Abeni , Paul Burton , Petr Mladek , Rob Herring , sean.wang@mediatek.com, Sergey Senozhatsky , shannon.nelson@oracle.com, Stefano Brivio , Steven Rostedt , "Tobin C. Harding" , makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp, Willem de Bruijn , Yonghong Song , yanjun.zhu@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3 Message-ID: <20181130222951.GA26980@linux.intel.com> References: <20181130192737.15053-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20181130195652.7syqys76646kpaph@linux-r8p5> <20181130205521.GA21006@linux.intel.com> <1543611662.3031.20.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181130214405.GG23772@linux.intel.com> <1543615069.3031.27.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181130221219.GA25537@linux.intel.com> <20181130151459.3ca2f5c8@lwn.net> <20181130222605.GA26261@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181130222605.GA26261@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-parisc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:26:05PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:59PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800 > > Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from > > > other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what > > > the responsibility part here means. > > > > > > I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for > > > existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm. > > > > > > Is this wrong interpretation? Should I conclude that I made a mistake > > > by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says? > > > After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before. > > > > Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst? > > As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things should > > be interpreted here. > > Ugh, was not aware that there two documents. > > Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged to > single common sense code of conduct? I.e. if the latter that you pointed out tells you what you actually should do what value does the former bring? Just looked up archives and realized that there has been whole alot of CoC related discussions. No wonder this is seen as waste of time. /Jarkko