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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS 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 DA393C43441 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:25:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36F52086D for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:25:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="eZwy7aGV" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A36F52086D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.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 S1726893AbeJJXsb (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:48:31 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:37342 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726503AbeJJXsb (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:48:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To: Subject:Sender:Reply-To: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=WoyPE1ZAp/531dwLgXUH6MtrSMJoYHdoFw+mcIzLmCM=; b=eZwy7aGVlZ6U5uPN7xRMGbPz8 S6WH7n3A0+asFkxPkIn+5rVtY/8fpGpCrdxc8Jfy0MTF5wyuYnMqiNahBMl/1wmVvv8vcouoRWSbA iLhmjIzTQdjKrUhaisGHd4aF2Q0MmxIfm/ERvDI+tsjePVBjPt5lCtKmP0cBRNsJpZYYmaqYtahr8 /m7UMlkMf1w/xvao4pm2UhkS1kHOPHBz5KMO4ozMlwFdeh7QoaPf9uvA99DjOHn1Cc2sFLvbVCxh3 ViOmuiNv0KpYuruyS8vurEdxdeYqRZKxQ/BDy7oeyg+ogxOwEitguGPDcmQ3TxdVJmOfaszvKAftE R4mrOiP7Q==; Received: from static-50-53-52-16.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net ([50.53.52.16] helo=midway.dunlab) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1gAHIn-0007rG-Hi; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:25:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes To: Pavel Machek , James Bottomley Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , ksummit References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1538934030.4010.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181010161256.GB19941@amd> From: Randy Dunlap Message-ID: <5e5c745b-5b59-6655-99b1-c40874fdbdf2@infradead.org> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:25:36 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181010161256.GB19941@amd> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/10/18 9:12 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >>> Personally I'm not happy at all with how the new code of conduct was >>> rushed in, least because I still don't understand why it happened, >>> but also for all the other reasons we've discussed here in the past >>> few weeks. > > These are exactly my thoughts. Exactly. We have a process and the 4.19-rc4 CoC patch did not follow it. >>> But I also understand that there's lots of people (me included) who >>> don't want to ship a release with the code of conduct in it's current >>> in-between state. I think adding a disclaimer at the top, along the >>> lines of >>> >>> "Please note that this code of conduct and it's enforcement are still >>> under discussion." >> >> I don't disagree with the position, but eliminating our old code of >> conduct in favour of another we cast doubt on with this disclaimer >> effectively leaves us with nothing at all, which seems to be a worse >> situation. In that case, I think reverting the CoC commit >> (8a104f8b5867c682) and then restarting the replacement process is >> better than adding a disclaimer to the new one. > > Reverting it then having proper discussion sounds suitable to me. > > (And it would be nice to have something on the mailing lists, too, as > I probably won't make it to kernel summit this year.) Ditto. -- ~Randy