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=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, 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 606ABC46475 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:11:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA94C20652 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:11:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=thunk.org header.i=@thunk.org header.b="m4f4SUUQ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EA94C20652 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu 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 S1728314AbeJWQeJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:34:09 -0400 Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:47794 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727747AbeJWQeJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:34:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thunk.org; s=ef5046eb; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Reply-To: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=podc23Nx4h33627CIltzPxNt9Jft11USQ3DZudTJGzU=; b=m4f4SUUQtL1CRrateAC8c2kSFN d8v65a6NXFu5xEZp+CYTkrXiNxClaFfxMpJzBr2UJENbNjyZmsP5vdgA2mrSocEX5h7o67qr5799B 7r5hClhdb7QeC+OvKKM4DRJtlUvaUy7UXn0aUGh33gLX24kMqlsNu2lsnCdhPbrszAQE=; Received: from root (helo=callcc.thunk.org) by imap.thunk.org with local-esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gErn0-0007p8-WD; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:11:47 +0000 Received: by callcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 5ED2D7A36C3; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 04:11:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 04:11:44 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" To: NeilBrown Cc: Al Viro , Josh Triplett , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel , Linus Torvalds , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Mishi Choudhary Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document Message-ID: <20181023081144.GN1617@thunk.org> Reply-To: t@thunk.org Mail-Followup-To: t@thunk.org, NeilBrown , Al Viro , Josh Triplett , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel , Linus Torvalds , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Mishi Choudhary References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com> <87y3ar80ac.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181021222608.GA24845@localhost> <875zxt919d.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181023033130.GQ32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <87r2gh70ij.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87r2gh70ij.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 03:25:08PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > Yes, you could, and you can. But if it was Linus who was behaving > inappropriately, where did you go then? This is why I think whatever > "code" we have should be overtly a statement Linus makes about his > behaviour, in the first instance. You're still missing the point, and the problem. The concern was not *that* a patch was rejected, it was in *how* the patch was rejected. The "problem" has never been about how Linus was treating anyone other than core maintainers; i.e., most of the rants that I can think of (a) happened years of ago, and (b) were directed at the sort of people who were in the room at the Maintainer's Summit yesterday. Who which, by the way, didn't have a complaint about Linus's recent behavior; in fact, there was general agreement that Linus's behavior has been getting *better* over the last few years. One of the more important effects of the CoC is that newcomers have a fear about Linux's reputation of having extremely toxic community. There is a narrative that has been constructed that because Linus behaves badly to everyone; and this gives everyone "permission" to behave badly. Regardless of how true it may have been in the past, I believe that it is largely obsolete today. And so, the mere existence of a CoC has caused some newcomers to say that they have "already noticed a difference" --- which is IMO mostly the effect of CoC easing fears, as opposed to any real change in Linux community in the past four weeks. I think how it will work out in practice is that the CoC will be more a commitment about what we are holding up as community norms. Unfortunately, for some poeple the term "CoC" apparently acts as trigger language and it brings to mind legal proceedings, unaccountable court-like entities, and hammering people with punishments for petty issues with no appeal or recourse. Perhaps this is why other communities have elected to use terms such as "How to do Samba: Nicely" and "GNU Kind Communication Guidelines". All of these are trying to solve the same issue, and so my suggestion is let's just wait and see how things go. If people continue to see that the community has "changed" for the better, and other people see that we're not hammering people with sanctions, but rather reminding each other about the kind of community we aspire to be, it'll all be good. - Ted