From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
To: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 12:04:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181008190435.GA3963@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <FA87081B-1344-4CC8-8BCC-F00A985719FF@fb.com>
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 02:15:25PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2018, at 17:37, James Bottomley wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Even in the places where I don't agree with the discussion about what our
> code of conduct should be, I love that we're having it. Removing the
> enforcement clause basically goes back to the way things were. We'd be
> recognizing that we know issues happen, and explicitly stating that when
> serious events do happen, the community as a whole isn't committing to
> helping.
>
> It's true there are a lot of questions about how the community resolves
> problems and holds each other accountable for maintaining any code of
> conduct. I think the enforcement section leaves us the room we need to
> continue discussions and still make it clear that we're making an effort to
> shift away from the harsh discussions in the past.
Emphatically seconded.
I absolutely agree that we should to work on the enforcement section
over time; for instance, I agree that a dedicated team (ideally with
some training) would be better than vesting this in a technical
decision-making body.
But I agree with Chris that we should not remove this entirely. And I
don't think there's any special significance to this being in the 4.19
release as compared to an -rc or git HEAD.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-08 19:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-06 21:35 [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes James Bottomley
2018-10-06 21:36 ` [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses James Bottomley
2018-10-07 8:25 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-10-07 15:25 ` Shuah Khan
2018-10-07 9:04 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-10-07 9:54 ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-10-07 15:29 ` James Bottomley
2018-10-08 19:49 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-07 17:53 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-10-07 22:25 ` Dave Airlie
2018-10-07 22:56 ` Al Viro
2018-10-07 23:02 ` Al Viro
2018-10-07 23:37 ` Dave Airlie
2018-10-08 10:14 ` Mark Brown
2018-10-08 19:32 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-08 17:05 ` Luck, Tony
2018-10-08 14:08 ` James Bottomley
2018-10-10 16:36 ` Pavel Machek
2018-10-08 15:20 ` Josh Triplett
2018-10-08 15:30 ` James Bottomley
2018-10-08 19:23 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-08 19:57 ` Josh Triplett
2018-10-09 10:55 ` Mark Brown
2018-10-09 18:29 ` Rainer Fiebig
2018-10-09 18:56 ` Josh Triplett
2018-10-09 19:38 ` Laurent Pinchart
2018-10-09 19:44 ` James Bottomley
2018-10-10 7:22 ` Rainer Fiebig
2018-10-10 5:52 ` Rainer Fiebig
2018-10-10 7:08 ` Rainer Fiebig
2018-10-08 19:24 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-10 20:48 ` Frank Rowand
2018-10-06 21:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion James Bottomley
2018-10-06 21:43 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Tim.Bird
2018-10-07 3:33 ` James Bottomley
2018-10-08 13:51 ` Tim.Bird
2018-10-08 14:09 ` James Bottomley
2018-10-08 17:58 ` Tim.Bird
2018-10-08 18:11 ` James Bottomley
2018-10-08 18:54 ` Tim.Bird
2018-10-08 15:03 ` jonsmirl
2018-10-08 15:37 ` Alan Cox
2018-10-11 7:42 ` Dan Carpenter
2018-10-07 15:32 ` Shuah Khan
2018-10-07 17:56 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-10-07 19:51 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-10-08 18:15 ` Chris Mason
2018-10-08 19:04 ` Josh Triplett [this message]
2018-10-08 20:23 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-10 15:53 ` Alan Cox
2018-10-10 17:19 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-10 20:09 ` Alan Cox
2018-10-10 20:30 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-10-07 17:11 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes Daniel Vetter
2018-10-07 17:40 ` James Bottomley
2018-10-07 17:50 ` jonsmirl
2018-10-07 17:52 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-10-10 16:12 ` Pavel Machek
2018-10-10 16:25 ` Randy Dunlap
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181008190435.GA3963@localhost \
--to=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).