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=-6.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, 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 C7F80C65C20 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:09:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D7A20858 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:09:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="AiL9lVlZ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 75D7A20858 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=HansenPartnership.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 S1726563AbeJHVVg (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2018 17:21:36 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:42794 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726198AbeJHVVg (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2018 17:21:36 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F10A8EE2EC; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 07:09:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LbVJgeciOwxf; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 07:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [153.66.254.242] (unknown [50.35.68.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8B528EE0FD; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 07:09:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1539007781; bh=GMZAXrqnVXsIYCht1/Widbnw1WYYA976hmddRjwM2mc=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=AiL9lVlZK/uiO6yF5ai6iqC00J0fGNlVvJzJkUeV8+CpnUfL4JR8tWKJ9YDH5vjH2 6j+Ct7WJyC7or2W/XuraXoKt6Gdin/jRs3k8hTXA1BzPIzC1od1yZ7YMaaNQ2+sWOz Qr5t8tR/2CRMCZN7bQvB79575OJQCDFFDKIns/wY= Message-ID: <1539007780.4344.3.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion From: James Bottomley To: Tim.Bird@sony.com, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 07:09:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1538861851.4088.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1538883209.4088.14.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 13:51 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Bottomley  > > On Sat, 2018-10-06 at 21:43 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: James Bottomley > > > > > > > > Significant concern has been expressed about the > > > > responsibilities outlined in the enforcement clause of the new > > > > code of conduct.  Since there is concern that this becomes > > > > binding on the release of the 4.19 kernel, strip the > > > > enforcement clauses to give the community time to consider and > > > > debate how this should be handled. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > > > > > > > --- > > > >  Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------------- > > > >  1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social > > > > media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an > > > > online or offline event. Representation of a project may be > > > >  further defined and clarified by project maintainers. > > > > > > > > -Enforcement > > > > -=========== > > > > - > > > > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable > > > > behavior may be > > > > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at > > > > -. All complaints will be > > > > reviewed and > > > > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed > > > > necessary and > > > > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to > > > > maintain > > > > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > > > incident.  Further details of > > > > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. > > > > > > I think it's OK to leave the above section, as it doesn't speak > > > to enforcement, but rather is just a set of reporting > > > instructions, with an assurance of confidentiality.  This seems > > > to me not to be the objectionable part of this section. > > > (IOW, I would omit this removal from the patch). > > > > So I did think about that, but it struck me that with both > > paragraphs removed, the current CoC is very similar to the status > > quo: namely every subsystem handles their own issues and that's > > formalised by the "Our Responsibilities" section.  That also makes > > me think that whether we want a centralised channel of reporting or > > enforcement and what it should be also ought to be part of the > > debate.  The TAB was created to channel community technical input > > into the Linux Foundation.  That's not to say it can't provide the > > reporting and arbitration structure, but if we're going to do it > > right we should debate the expansion of its duties (and powers). > > When the Code of Conflict was adopted 3 years ago, we already created > the central reporting mechanism, so I actually think leaving (ie > including) the above paragraph is closer to the status quo.  I think > it's the expanded powers and duties (or perception thereof) that are > causing concern and I think debating those to clarify intent, and > adopting changes as needed  to ameliorate concerns is worthwhile. If we want to go back to the status quo, then a plain revert is the patch series I should submit. > I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the TAB will end up > performing a mediator role to smooth hurt feelings and remind and > encourage improved communication - very similar to what we've done in > the past.  I really believe that bans will continue to be very few > and far between, as they have been historically (I can only think of > 3 in the past decade.) That might very well be the position the discussion arrives at; however, I really think making the process fully transparent this time requires not prejudging the outcome. James