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 B8DDBC6787D for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 02:29:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D6EE2075C for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 02:29:41 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7D6EE2075C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=joshtriplett.org 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 S1726665AbeJHJjA (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2018 05:39:00 -0400 Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.198]:60919 "EHLO relay6-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725760AbeJHJjA (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2018 05:39:00 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 50.39.174.102 Received: from localhost (50-39-174-102.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net [50.39.174.102]) (Authenticated sender: josh@joshtriplett.org) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A47FC0002; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 02:29:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 19:29:32 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Geert Uytterhoeven , James Bottomley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list of discrimination factors Message-ID: <20181008022931.GB30346@localhost> References: <20181007085102.17795-1-geert@linux-m68k.org> <20181007113514.GA21217@localhost> <1814283.64diKEr4zR@avalon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1814283.64diKEr4zR@avalon> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 08:18:26PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Josh, > > On Sunday, 7 October 2018 14:35:14 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 10:51:02AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > Providing an explicit list of discrimination factors may give the false > > > impression that discrimination based on other unlisted factors would be > > > allowed. > > > > > > Avoid any ambiguity by removing the list, to ensure "a harassment-free > > > experience for everyone", period. > > > > I would suggest reading the commit message that added this in the first > > place. "Explicit guidelines have demonstrated success in other projects > > and other areas of the kernel." See also various comparisons of codes of > > conduct, which make the same point. The point of this list is precisely > > to serve as one such explicit guideline; removing it would rather defeat > > the purpose. > > > > In any case, this is not the appropriate place for such patches, any > > more than it's the place for patches to the GPL. > > So what's an appropriate place to discuss the changes that we would like, > *together*, to make to the current document and propose upstream ? I didn't say "not the appropriate place to discuss" (ksummit-discuss is not ideal but we don't currently have somewhere better), I said "not the appropriate place for such patches". The Linux kernel is by no means the only project using the Contributor Covenant. In general, we don't encourage people working on significant changes to the Linux kernel to work in private for an extended period and only pop up when "done"; rather, we encourage people to start conversations early and include others in the design. Along the same lines, I'd suggest that patches or ideas for patches belong upstream. For instance, the idea of clarifying that email addresses already used on a public mailing list don't count as "private information" seems like a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and one that other projects would benefit from as well.