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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, 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 24AD4C32789 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:53:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EFA52081F for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:53:04 +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="l5AldFW6" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6EFA52081F 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 S1726897AbeKBXAP (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2018 19:00:15 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:34290 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726026AbeKBXAP (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2018 19:00:15 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA938EE179; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 06:53:02 -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 H-vcvjj-KalF; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 06:53:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [153.66.254.194] (unknown [50.35.68.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 593858EE0D4; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 06:53:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1541166781; bh=CQdFbfKMQcWbw4xtdPzbpvN4Q5nNZYWn2W8gMAs51xM=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=l5AldFW6H7Eb+O0obNvfMeQvmSSzQ/N1ysNW/Po8yq75Vcn+SpMq7tv/MQSUBmtMf TvxLMUQ2Dqmp9iGjfw20OPQTzq0Om6SzJbLsfvkG2N6eK5YzndqAzVS+nvo4fcw0gB hQXnwFswHNc0yeX1LgVp3ha4+gwtl8XvUw/jqbMU= Message-ID: <1541166774.2872.3.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document From: James Bottomley To: NeilBrown , paulmck@linux.ibm.com, Josh Triplett Cc: Mishi Choudhary , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2018 06:52:54 -0700 In-Reply-To: <8736sk31t8.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com> <87y3ar80ac.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181021222608.GA24845@localhost> <875zxt919d.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181024121622.GA10942@localhost> <87ftwt6850.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181027011010.GA29769@localhost> <20181101164544.GA31540@linux.ibm.com> <8736sk31t8.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-o+fhgU9nAAKE//XmLa2T" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-o+fhgU9nAAKE//XmLa2T Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2018-11-02 at 08:50 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > Firstly, you gave an analytical response to what was, in my view, an > emotional observation. While I agree with your analysis, it is > largely irrelevant. It is not how people *feel* about kernel > development. >=20 > You say that the code of conflict is gone, but in fact much of it is > preserved in the code-of-conduct-interpretation. If you reflect on > the focus of the second para of that document (which I think was > directly lifted from the code-of-conflict) you will see that value > is placed squarely on the code (kernel code, not code of > conduct). The code is put forward as the thing of primary > importance. People (you, me) are only mentioned in the context of > being the authors of code that will be criticised - because (it > almost says this) we care about the code, but not about you. >=20 > So I think it is beyond argument that the value system presented by > this paragraph is > code > people Actually, I think this whole code vs people debate is a straw man and inherently inimical to the discussion. In neither code of conduct (old or new) is there any statement that allows one to make a value judgment of people relative to code, so the very premise you're all arguing on doesn't exist. The two separate, but related statements present in both systems are that the technical quality of the code going into the kernel is paramount and that we should try to be respectful of others in email or other interactions including code reviews. Code and people aren't opposites: you can give purely technical reviews with a laser like focus on quality and still do it respectfully. Or to put it another way: respecting code doesn't automatically mean you disrespect people, which seems to be what the '>' was implying. James --=-o+fhgU9nAAKE//XmLa2T Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABMIAB0WIQTnYEDbdso9F2cI+arnQslM7pishQUCW9xWtgAKCRDnQslM7pis hZl5AQC54rjxAIANJzDTSEJBn+6ONqPcii7UXCrljm/L+5SULQD9HMYRr4SfzmPm VvLOoLP+HF9I/3n7AJbqLiXhcJ2GMoo= =aR4x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-o+fhgU9nAAKE//XmLa2T--