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=-2.3 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 0C81FC6787D for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2018 22:56:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C232084D for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2018 22:56:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 72C232084D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ZenIV.linux.org.uk 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 S1726177AbeJHGFE (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2018 02:05:04 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:39320 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725907AbeJHGFD (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2018 02:05:03 -0400 Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1g9Hy9-0007jS-M6; Sun, 07 Oct 2018 22:56:13 +0000 Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 23:56:13 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Dave Airlie Cc: James Bottomley , LKML , ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses Message-ID: <20181007225613.GZ32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1538861799.4088.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.