Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses

From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ksummit <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 23:56:13 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181007225613.GZ32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPM=9tz3Z=vD6qWUL2boZGEAgMeC_o9euBXFu2V58RHOn6gR9g@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:25:35AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:

> This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from
> the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions
> if they are considered appropriate.

Nicely done, that - gotta love the passive voice use.  Considered appropriate
*by* *whom*?

Anyway, upstream clearly is a poor fit for Linus kernel community structure
- the use of open lists, amount of subprojects, the length of transmission
chains into the mainline, total amount of contributors, amount of people
elsewhere in the project with occasional forays into any given area, etc.
And IIRC the CoC upstream's opinion was that it wouldn't fit.

We can surround it with "explanations" until we get something that more or
less fits, but then we'd need to reanalyse them every time an upstream
change gets merged.  And the lack of textual conflicts is not a good thing
in such situations, obviously.