* [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes @ 2018-10-06 21:35 James Bottomley 2018-10-06 21:36 ` [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses James Bottomley ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: James Bottomley @ 2018-10-06 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel We've had several threads discussing potential changes to the code of conduct but Mauro is the only person to have proposed an actual patch. In order to move the debate on, I'm presenting two patches, one to fix the email problem Mauro identified and the other to strip the enforcement section pending community discussion as Shuah suggested. I'll take responsibility for collecting any tags people want to add (review/ack/sign off, etc) and sending the patch in as a signed pull request before 4.19 final if they get enough community support. Note, I've sent both patches in as a series to facilitate review and discussion, but they are separable if one is looked on with less favour than the other. It was also a bit unclear which list to send this to, but I finally settled on linux-kernel as the catch all and ksummit-discuss since that's where most of the current discussion is. I can add other lists as people suggest them. James --- James Bottomley (2): code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 17 +---------------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 16 deletions(-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-06 21:35 [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes James Bottomley @ 2018-10-06 21:36 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-07 8:25 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Geert Uytterhoeven ` (6 more replies) 2018-10-06 21:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion James Bottomley 2018-10-07 17:11 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes Daniel Vetter 2 siblings, 7 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: James Bottomley @ 2018-10-06 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this ambiguity. Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> --- Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks * Public or private harassment * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic - address, without explicit permission + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit permission * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting -- 2.13.7 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 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 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-07 15:25 ` Shuah Khan 2018-10-07 9:04 ` Daniel Vetter ` (5 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2018-10-07 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley; +Cc: ksummit-discuss, Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi James, Thanks for your patch! On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email > addresses > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing that > private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since > the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch > process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> Fixes: 8a104f8b5867c682 ("Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.") Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > * Public or private harassment > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > - address, without explicit permission > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit permission > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a > professional setting Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-07 8:25 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2018-10-07 15:25 ` Shuah Khan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Shuah Khan @ 2018-10-07 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Geert Uytterhoeven, James Bottomley Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, ksummit-discuss, Shuah Khan Hi James, Thanks for the patch. On 10/07/2018 02:25 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi James, > > Thanks for your patch! > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: >> From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> >> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email >> addresses >> >> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing > > that > >> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since >> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch >> process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by >> the project to correct this ambiguity. >> >> Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > > Fixes: 8a104f8b5867c682 ("Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.") > > Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> > Acked-by: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> >> --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst >> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: >> * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks >> * Public or private harassment >> * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic >> - address, without explicit permission >> + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit permission >> * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a >> professional setting > thanks, -- Shuah ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 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 9:04 ` Daniel Vetter 2018-10-07 9:54 ` Hannes Reinecke 2018-10-07 15:29 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-07 17:53 ` Guenter Roeck ` (4 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 2 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2018-10-07 9:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley; +Cc: ksummit, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email > addresses > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing > private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since > the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch > process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > * Public or private harassment > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > - address, without explicit permission > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit permission > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a > professional setting We've discussed this a bit with freedesktop.org people a while ago, both from a CoC and privacy regulations pov, and we concluded that attaching random people's emails in Reported-by: and similar lines, without their consent, is indeed a problem. Bugzilla is rather problematic in this way, since it looks like it's protecting your email address and keeping it private, but then you can still just grab it from the bugzilla emails without first asking for permission. That's one of the reasons why fd.o admins want to retire Bugzilla in favour of gitlab issues (where this is handled a lot more strictly). What we discussed in the older thread here on ksummit-discuss is making it clear that email addresses sent to public mailing lists are considered public information, which I think is worth clarifying. But what you're excempting here is anything collected without permission in the past, which I don't think is a good wording. I've definitely been skimping on the rules here in the past. At least in my understanding of the legal situation, if you get a bug report through a private channel, or at least a channel that hides private address information (like Bugzilla does, albeit sloppily), then you do have to ask for explicit consent to publishing that information. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-07 9:04 ` Daniel Vetter @ 2018-10-07 9:54 ` Hannes Reinecke 2018-10-07 15:29 ` James Bottomley 1 sibling, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Hannes Reinecke @ 2018-10-07 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Vetter, James Bottomley; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, ksummit On 10/7/18 11:04 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: >> >> From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> >> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email >> addresses >> >> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing >> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since >> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch >> process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by >> the project to correct this ambiguity. >> >> Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> >> --- >> Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst >> index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst >> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: >> * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks >> * Public or private harassment >> * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic >> - address, without explicit permission >> + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit permission >> * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a >> professional setting > > We've discussed this a bit with freedesktop.org people a while ago, > both from a CoC and privacy regulations pov, and we concluded that > attaching random people's emails in Reported-by: and similar lines, > without their consent, is indeed a problem. Bugzilla is rather > problematic in this way, since it looks like it's protecting your > email address and keeping it private, but then you can still just grab > it from the bugzilla emails without first asking for permission. > That's one of the reasons why fd.o admins want to retire Bugzilla in > favour of gitlab issues (where this is handled a lot more strictly). > > What we discussed in the older thread here on ksummit-discuss is > making it clear that email addresses sent to public mailing lists are > considered public information, which I think is worth clarifying. But > what you're excempting here is anything collected without permission > in the past, which I don't think is a good wording. I've definitely > been skimping on the rules here in the past. At least in my > understanding of the legal situation, if you get a bug report through > a private channel, or at least a channel that hides private address > information (like Bugzilla does, albeit sloppily), then you do have to > ask for explicit consent to publishing that information. That is my interpretation, too. And it even says so in Documentation/submitting-patches.rst, do I don't we need to clarify it further. Cheers, Hannes ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 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 1 sibling, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: James Bottomley @ 2018-10-07 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Vetter; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, ksummit On Sun, 2018-10-07 at 11:04 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > > > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > > 2001 > > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about > > collecting email > > addresses > > > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers > > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable > > behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email > > addresses as part of the patch process, add an exception clause for > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > ambiguity. > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.c > > om> > > --- > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants > > include: > > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or > > political attacks > > * Public or private harassment > > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or > > electronic > > - address, without explicit permission > > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without > > explicit permission > > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate > > in a > > professional setting > > We've discussed this a bit with freedesktop.org people a while ago, > both from a CoC and privacy regulations pov, and we concluded that > attaching random people's emails in Reported-by: and similar lines, > without their consent, is indeed a problem. Bugzilla is rather > problematic in this way, since it looks like it's protecting your > email address and keeping it private, but then you can still just > grab it from the bugzilla emails without first asking for permission. > That's one of the reasons why fd.o admins want to retire Bugzilla in > favour of gitlab issues (where this is handled a lot more strictly). This is a code of conduct example of a violation. While I agree we should exercise sensitivity in reporter expectations I don't think a maintainer getting it wrong should be equated to doxxing. In many ways, this is why having examples sections in quasi legal documents is a bad thing to do because it's arguable (as you have done) that if some behaviour isn't explicitly mentioned in the unacceptable examples it must be acceptable. Look at it this way: if a maintainer screws up and adds a reported by from someone who didn't expect their email to be published should that be treated as an immediate code of conduct violation by whatever enforcement process we come up with? I think most maintainers would answer "no" to this. > What we discussed in the older thread here on ksummit-discuss is > making it clear that email addresses sent to public mailing lists are > considered public information, which I think is worth clarifying. But > what you're excempting here is anything collected without permission > in the past, which I don't think is a good wording. I've definitely > been skimping on the rules here in the past. At least in my > understanding of the legal situation, if you get a bug report through > a private channel, or at least a channel that hides private address > information (like Bugzilla does, albeit sloppily), then you do have > to ask for explicit consent to publishing that information. I think that's not the way to look at what a code of conduct is. The examples need to be clear and they need to exclude any usual project habits from the violations piece. The nuances of when to get permission for adding our usual tags should be covered in a separate document (the submitting patches one). James ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-07 15:29 ` James Bottomley @ 2018-10-08 19:49 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 0 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab @ 2018-10-08 19:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley; +Cc: Daniel Vetter, Linux Kernel Mailing List, ksummit Em Sun, 07 Oct 2018 08:29:01 -0700 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> escreveu: > On Sun, 2018-10-07 at 11:04 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley > > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > > > > > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > > > 2001 > > > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > > > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about > > > collecting email > > > addresses > > > > > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers > > > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable > > > behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email > > > addresses as part of the patch process, add an exception clause for > > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > > ambiguity. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.c > > > om> > > > --- > > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants > > > include: > > > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or > > > political attacks > > > * Public or private harassment > > > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or > > > electronic > > > - address, without explicit permission > > > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without > > > explicit permission > > > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate > > > in a > > > professional setting > > > > We've discussed this a bit with freedesktop.org people a while ago, > > both from a CoC and privacy regulations pov, and we concluded that > > attaching random people's emails in Reported-by: and similar lines, > > without their consent, is indeed a problem. Bugzilla is rather > > problematic in this way, since it looks like it's protecting your > > email address and keeping it private, but then you can still just > > grab it from the bugzilla emails without first asking for permission. > > That's one of the reasons why fd.o admins want to retire Bugzilla in > > favour of gitlab issues (where this is handled a lot more strictly). > > This is a code of conduct example of a violation. While I agree we > should exercise sensitivity in reporter expectations I don't think a > maintainer getting it wrong should be equated to doxxing. > > In many ways, this is why having examples sections in quasi legal > documents is a bad thing to do because it's arguable (as you have done) > that if some behaviour isn't explicitly mentioned in the unacceptable > examples it must be acceptable. > > Look at it this way: if a maintainer screws up and adds a reported by > from someone who didn't expect their email to be published should that > be treated as an immediate code of conduct violation by whatever > enforcement process we come up with? I think most maintainers would > answer "no" to this. Agreed. I'd say more: what happens if someone adds a diff inside a bug report? Not adding the author can be problematic too. People should assume that, when reporting a bug, replying to a patch, etc, his e-mail will be visible by people, and it can be used when a fixup patch is produced. If someone doesn't want that, it should *explicitly* say otherwise. The text changes suggested by James reflects that: an e-mail sent in private, with an explicit message saying to not use the personal address is not an "electronic address not ordinarily collected by the project". Of course, it is up to the maintainer/developer that receives such e-mails to either use its content, anonimizing the submitter as requested (and eventually taking associated risks with regards to GPL - if the email contains a patch) or to just ignore it. Anyway, such "special cases" are the kind of thing that makes sense on a FAQ, and not at the letter of the document itself. Thanks, Mauro ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 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 9:04 ` Daniel Vetter @ 2018-10-07 17:53 ` Guenter Roeck 2018-10-07 22:25 ` Dave Airlie ` (3 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Guenter Roeck @ 2018-10-07 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley, ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel On 10/06/2018 02:36 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email > addresses > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing > private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since > the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch > process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > * Public or private harassment > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > - address, without explicit permission > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit permission > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a > professional setting > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-06 21:36 ` [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses James Bottomley ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2018-10-07 17:53 ` Guenter Roeck @ 2018-10-07 22:25 ` Dave Airlie 2018-10-07 22:56 ` Al Viro ` (2 more replies) 2018-10-08 15:20 ` Josh Triplett ` (2 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 3 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Dave Airlie @ 2018-10-07 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley; +Cc: ksummit, LKML On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 07:36, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email > addresses > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing > private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since > the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch > process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > * Public or private harassment > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > - address, without explicit permission > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit permission > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a > professional setting > I agree we want something like this, the question is whether we want to change the CoC text from upstream, or clarify it in a separate section. 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. Dave. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-07 22:25 ` Dave Airlie @ 2018-10-07 22:56 ` Al Viro 2018-10-07 23:02 ` Al Viro ` (2 more replies) 2018-10-08 14:08 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-10 16:36 ` Pavel Machek 2 siblings, 3 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Al Viro @ 2018-10-07 22:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Airlie; +Cc: James Bottomley, LKML, ksummit 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-07 22:56 ` Al Viro @ 2018-10-07 23:02 ` Al Viro 2018-10-07 23:37 ` Dave Airlie 2018-10-08 17:05 ` Luck, Tony 2 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Al Viro @ 2018-10-07 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Airlie; +Cc: James Bottomley, LKML, ksummit On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 11:56:13PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > We can surround it with "explanations" Sorry, "clarifications". Or whatever euphemism you prefer for exegesis, really... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 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 2 siblings, 2 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Dave Airlie @ 2018-10-07 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Al Viro; +Cc: James Bottomley, LKML, ksummit On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > 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*? Good question, do we have a CoC maintainer? Is Linus it, Greg, TAB? Maybe step one is to find the person who can make changes to the kernel CoC (has anyone checked if Linus or Greg will merge this). > > 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. I think we can try, fixing upstream is a worthy goal for other projects in the same position, rather than everyone diverging. > > 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. We do this already for the GPL (hence the GPLv2 only, and syscall exceptions). Dave. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-07 23:37 ` Dave Airlie @ 2018-10-08 10:14 ` Mark Brown 2018-10-08 19:32 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 1 sibling, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Mark Brown @ 2018-10-08 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Airlie; +Cc: Al Viro, James Bottomley, LKML, ksummit [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 892 bytes --] On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:37:59AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > 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. > We do this already for the GPL (hence the GPLv2 only, and syscall exceptions). That works reasonably well for licenses because people reading licenses tend to do so in a rather detail oriented fashion so it's not that big an obstacle to have something that's a bit harder to follow. It's not clear to me that the same thing is going to apply to people reading codes of conduct, especially those looking for reassurance from them. It might be OK but it's probably worth thinking about. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-07 23:37 ` Dave Airlie 2018-10-08 10:14 ` Mark Brown @ 2018-10-08 19:32 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 1 sibling, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab @ 2018-10-08 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Airlie; +Cc: Al Viro, James Bottomley, LKML, ksummit Em Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:37:59 +1000 Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> escreveu: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > 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*? > > Good question, do we have a CoC maintainer? Is Linus it, Greg, TAB? > > Maybe step one is to find the person who can make changes to the > kernel CoC (has anyone checked if Linus or Greg will merge this). If we add it to the MAINTAINERS file (with makes perfect sense to me), I would like to have a R: entry there, in order to be notified when people propose changes to it. My personal understanding is that it may have legal value under the legislation of the Country I live, and I'd like to understand changes there that might affect my workflow. Thanks, Mauro ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-07 22:56 ` Al Viro 2018-10-07 23:02 ` Al Viro 2018-10-07 23:37 ` Dave Airlie @ 2018-10-08 17:05 ` Luck, Tony 2 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Luck, Tony @ 2018-10-08 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Al Viro, Dave Airlie; +Cc: James Bottomley, LKML, ksummit 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. The whole document is under 500 words, if we can manage merges of tens of thousands of lines of code, this should be pretty easy by comparison. Making it difficult to merge new upstream versions could also be considered a positive thing. Given the outcry about this version appearing with no community discussion, I think folks will also be unhappy about finding some future merge that just says "Update CoC to upstream 1.5". -Tony ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-07 22:25 ` Dave Airlie 2018-10-07 22:56 ` Al Viro @ 2018-10-08 14:08 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-10 16:36 ` Pavel Machek 2 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: James Bottomley @ 2018-10-08 14:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Airlie; +Cc: LKML, ksummit On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:25 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 07:36, James Bottomley > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > > > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > > 2001 > > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about > > collecting email addresses > > > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers > > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable > > behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email > > addresses as part of the patch process, add an exception clause for > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > ambiguity. > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.c > > om> > > --- > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants > > include: > > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or > > political attacks > > * Public or private harassment > > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or > > electronic > > - address, without explicit permission > > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without > > explicit permission > > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate > > in a professional setting > > > > I agree we want something like this, the question is whether we want > to change the CoC text from upstream, or clarify it in a separate > section. A Code of Conduct should be clear and not hedged around with footnotes and interpretations in my opinion, which is why I offered the patch like this. > 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. The way I look at this is that it's very much like a vendor driver. Some are mirror images of the source because we work closely with them; others could be forks. However, the process for vendor drivers is that we make them work for us first and then see how the vendor wants to handle it. Once we agree the shape of what we need I promise to try to push it back into the source ... is that good enough compromise? James ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-07 22:25 ` Dave Airlie 2018-10-07 22:56 ` Al Viro 2018-10-08 14:08 ` James Bottomley @ 2018-10-10 16:36 ` Pavel Machek 2 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2018-10-10 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Airlie; +Cc: James Bottomley, ksummit, LKML [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1553 bytes --] > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > > --- > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > > * Public or private harassment > > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > > - address, without explicit permission > > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit permission > > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a > > professional setting > > > > I agree we want something like this, the question is whether we want > to change the CoC text from upstream, or clarify it in a separate > section. If this comes from some kind of "upstream", that should be clearly marked so in the document or at least in the git log. I was always wondering who created that "useful document". Pavel (And would still like to know what the background story is.) -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-06 21:36 ` [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses James Bottomley ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2018-10-07 22:25 ` Dave Airlie @ 2018-10-08 15:20 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-08 15:30 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-09 18:29 ` Rainer Fiebig 2018-10-08 19:24 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-10 20:48 ` Frank Rowand 6 siblings, 2 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Josh Triplett @ 2018-10-08 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley; +Cc: ksummit-discuss, linux-kernel On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing > private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since > the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch > process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-08 15:20 ` Josh Triplett @ 2018-10-08 15:30 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-08 19:23 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-09 18:29 ` Rainer Fiebig 1 sibling, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: James Bottomley @ 2018-10-08 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Josh Triplett; +Cc: linux-kernel, ksummit-discuss On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:20 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers > > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable > > behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email > > addresses as part of the patch process, add an exception clause for > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > ambiguity. > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) We can debate that as part of everything else, but my personal opinion would be we should never point to an outside document under someone else's control for guidance as to how our community would enforce its own code of conduct. James ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-08 15:30 ` James Bottomley @ 2018-10-08 19:23 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-08 19:57 ` Josh Triplett 0 siblings, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab @ 2018-10-08 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley; +Cc: Josh Triplett, linux-kernel, ksummit-discuss Em Mon, 08 Oct 2018 08:30:20 -0700 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> escreveu: > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:20 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers > > > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable > > > behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email > > > addresses as part of the patch process, add an exception clause for > > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > > ambiguity. > > > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > > We can debate that as part of everything else, but my personal opinion > would be we should never point to an outside document under someone > else's control for guidance as to how our community would enforce its > own code of conduct. Fully agreed on that. The same argument that we use for GPL 2 only applies here: we should stick with an specific version of this it, in a way that we won't be automatically bound to whatever new version of it would say. Btw, the term "social contract" is there at the FAQ. At least in Brazil, as far as I can tell, there's no distinction of a "social contract" and a "contract". From what I understand, both will have equal legal value. Thanks, Mauro ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-08 19:23 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab @ 2018-10-08 19:57 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-09 10:55 ` Mark Brown 0 siblings, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: Josh Triplett @ 2018-10-08 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab; +Cc: James Bottomley, linux-kernel, ksummit-discuss On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:23:57PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Mon, 08 Oct 2018 08:30:20 -0700 > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> escreveu: > > > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:20 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers > > > > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable > > > > behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email > > > > addresses as part of the patch process, add an exception clause for > > > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > > > ambiguity. > > > > > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > > > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > > > > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > > > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > > > > We can debate that as part of everything else, but my personal opinion > > would be we should never point to an outside document under someone > > else's control for guidance as to how our community would enforce its > > own code of conduct. > > Fully agreed on that. The same argument that we use for GPL 2 only > applies here: we should stick with an specific version of this it, in > a way that we won't be automatically bound to whatever new version > of it would say. Linking to a FAQ with useful clarifications in it doesn't make those "binding". This is *not* a legal agreement. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-08 19:57 ` Josh Triplett @ 2018-10-09 10:55 ` Mark Brown 0 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Mark Brown @ 2018-10-09 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Josh Triplett Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab, James Bottomley, linux-kernel, ksummit-discuss [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1138 bytes --] On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 12:57:51PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:23:57PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Fully agreed on that. The same argument that we use for GPL 2 only > > applies here: we should stick with an specific version of this it, in > > a way that we won't be automatically bound to whatever new version > > of it would say. > Linking to a FAQ with useful clarifications in it doesn't make those > "binding". This is *not* a legal agreement. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to interpret the contributor covenant in that sort of fashion - one of the consequences of the fact that it does things people want like be explicit about exactly what behaviours it's covering, specify consequences and so on is that it looks a lot like how things that are intended to be some sort of legal document look. This is going to be especially true for non-native speakers. If it is causing problems that needs some clarification but to be honest if people are erring on the side of taking the code of conduct too seriously that doesn't seem like the worst thing ever. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-08 15:20 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-08 15:30 ` James Bottomley @ 2018-10-09 18:29 ` Rainer Fiebig 2018-10-09 18:56 ` Josh Triplett 1 sibling, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: Rainer Fiebig @ 2018-10-09 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Josh Triplett; +Cc: james.bottomley, linux-kernel, ksummit-discuss Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing > > private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since > > the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch > > process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by > > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? > (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a FAQ. Hm. Here's a one-line Code of Conduct from Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."[1] Put another way: Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you. Simple beats complex. No FAQ necessary, imo. Regards! Rainer Fiebig [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant -- The truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought. Richard Feynman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-09 18:29 ` Rainer Fiebig @ 2018-10-09 18:56 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-09 19:38 ` Laurent Pinchart 2018-10-10 7:08 ` Rainer Fiebig 0 siblings, 2 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Josh Triplett @ 2018-10-09 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rainer Fiebig; +Cc: james.bottomley, linux-kernel, ksummit-discuss On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: > Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing > > > private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since > > > the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch > > > process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by > > > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > > questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? > > (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > > > > The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. > The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a FAQ. Hm. Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a common understanding. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-09 18:56 ` Josh Triplett @ 2018-10-09 19:38 ` Laurent Pinchart 2018-10-09 19:44 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-10 5:52 ` Rainer Fiebig 2018-10-10 7:08 ` Rainer Fiebig 1 sibling, 2 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Laurent Pinchart @ 2018-10-09 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ksummit-discuss Cc: Josh Triplett, Rainer Fiebig, james.bottomley, linux-kernel Hi Josh, On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 21:56:23 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: > > Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > >> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > >>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers > >>> publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable > >>> behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email > >>> addresses as part of the patch process, add an exception clause for > >>> email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > >>> ambiguity. > >> > >> Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other > >> questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > >> > >> Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? > >> (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) > > > > The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. > > The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a > > FAQ. Hm. > > Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was > previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a common > understanding. I see an elephant in the room in the fact that we have carefully avoided discussing whether people share a common goal here :-/ -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 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 1 sibling, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: James Bottomley @ 2018-10-09 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Laurent Pinchart, ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel, Rainer Fiebig On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 22:38 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Josh, > > On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 21:56:23 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: > > > Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: > > > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley > > > > wrote: > > > > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it > > > > > considers publishing private information such as email > > > > > addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since the Linux kernel > > > > > collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch > > > > > process, add an exception clause for email addresses > > > > > ordinarily collected by the project to correct this > > > > > ambiguity. > > > > > > > > Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many > > > > other questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . > > > > > > > > Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, > > > > instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that > > > > FAQ.) > > > > > > The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. > > > The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it > > > needs a FAQ. Hm. > > > > Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was > > previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a > > common understanding. > > I see an elephant in the room in the fact that we have carefully > avoided discussing whether people share a common goal here :-/ We don't need to share a common goal; we just need to find the document useful on its merits. That's why we're a mostly GPLv2 project without signing up to most of the FSF philosophy. However, that's also why we would keep our own interpretations, understandings and clarifications in house, as it were. James ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-09 19:44 ` James Bottomley @ 2018-10-10 7:22 ` Rainer Fiebig 0 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Rainer Fiebig @ 2018-10-10 7:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley, Laurent Pinchart, ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel James Bottomley schrieb: > On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 22:38 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> Hi Josh, >> >> On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 21:56:23 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: >>>> Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: >>>>> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it >>>>>> considers publishing private information such as email >>>>>> addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since the Linux kernel >>>>>> collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch >>>>>> process, add an exception clause for email addresses >>>>>> ordinarily collected by the project to correct this >>>>>> ambiguity. >>>>> >>>>> Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many >>>>> other questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . >>>>> >>>>> Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, >>>>> instead? (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that >>>>> FAQ.) >>>> >>>> The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. >>>> The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it >>>> needs a FAQ. Hm. >>> >>> Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was >>> previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a >>> common understanding. >> >> I see an elephant in the room in the fact that we have carefully >> avoided discussing whether people share a common goal here :-/ > > We don't need to share a common goal; we just need to find the It wouldn't hurt to have one and mention it either. > document useful on its merits. That's why we're a mostly GPLv2 > project without signing up to most of the FSF philosophy. However, > that's also why we would keep our own interpretations, understandings > and clarifications in house, as it were. > > James > Sure. So long! Rainer Fiebig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-09 19:38 ` Laurent Pinchart 2018-10-09 19:44 ` James Bottomley @ 2018-10-10 5:52 ` Rainer Fiebig 1 sibling, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Rainer Fiebig @ 2018-10-10 5:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Laurent Pinchart, ksummit-discuss Cc: Josh Triplett, james.bottomley, linux-kernel Laurent Pinchart schrieb: > Hi Josh, > > On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 21:56:23 EEST Josh Triplett wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: >>> Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: >>>> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: >>>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers >>>>> publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable >>>>> behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email >>>>> addresses as part of the patch process, add an exception clause for >>>>> email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to correct this >>>>> ambiguity. >>>> >>>> Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other >>>> questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . >>>> >>>> Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? >>>> (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) >>> >>> The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. >>> The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a >>> FAQ. Hm. >> >> Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was >> previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a common >> understanding. > > I see an elephant in the room in the fact that we have carefully avoided > discussing whether people share a common goal here :-/ > I've been thinking about this a bit lately. Maybe it might be good to explicitly mention that common goal in a sort of a preamble. Here are the first few lines of what came to my mind: Code of Conduct +++++++++++++++ The goal of the Linux kernel development process is to maintain and advance the most robust operating system kernel ever. Needless to say, views on how to achieve this will differ at times. In order to keep arguments civilized and to ensure an open, positive and constructive environment, we have setup guidelines that participants are expected to comply with: No bias ======= Nobody must be discriminated or favored due to personal traits like - for example - age, gender or ethnicity. They are irrelevant. What counts is whether the contribution is in line with a/m goal. Any such contribution will be carefully reviewed. Be excellent to each other ========================== [...] So long! Rainer Fiebig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-09 18:56 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-09 19:38 ` Laurent Pinchart @ 2018-10-10 7:08 ` Rainer Fiebig 1 sibling, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Rainer Fiebig @ 2018-10-10 7:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Josh Triplett; +Cc: james.bottomley, linux-kernel, ksummit-discuss Josh Triplett schrieb: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 08:29:24PM +0200, Rainer Fiebig wrote: >> Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett: >>> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: >>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing >>>> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since >>>> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch >>>> process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by >>>> the project to correct this ambiguity. >>> >>> Upstream has now adopted a FAQ, which addresses this and many other >>> questions. See https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq . >>> >>> Might I suggest adding that link to the bottom of the document, instead? >>> (And then, optionally, submitting entries for that FAQ.) >>> >> >> The Code of Conflict has 28 lines, including the heading. >> The Code of Conduct has 81 lines, including the heading. And it needs a FAQ. Hm. > > Yes, it turns out to be a more complicated problem than it was > previously oversimplified to. People don't automatically share a common > understanding. > I don't know what that complicated problem was. The commit message is a bit vaque in that respect. But I bet that in the end it *was* simple. And it probably wasn't that people felt discriminated because of their "body size". I also think that people actually do share a common understanding. Otherwise *no* CoC would work - however explicit it would be. We're not that different after all. A CoC that needs a FAQ to be understood may create more problems that it solves. So long! Rainer Fiebig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-06 21:36 ` [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses James Bottomley ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2018-10-08 15:20 ` Josh Triplett @ 2018-10-08 19:24 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-10 20:48 ` Frank Rowand 6 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab @ 2018-10-08 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley; +Cc: ksummit-discuss, linux-kernel Em Sat, 06 Oct 2018 14:36:39 -0700 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> escreveu: > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email > addresses > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing > private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since > the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch > process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > * Public or private harassment > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > - address, without explicit permission > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit permission > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a > professional setting > Reviewed-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org> Thanks, Mauro ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses 2018-10-06 21:36 ` [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email addresses James Bottomley ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 2018-10-08 19:24 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab @ 2018-10-10 20:48 ` Frank Rowand 6 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Frank Rowand @ 2018-10-10 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley, ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel On 10/06/18 14:36, James Bottomley wrote: > From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email > addresses > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing > private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since > the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch > process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily collected by > the project to correct this ambiguity. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: > * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks > * Public or private harassment > * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic > - address, without explicit permission > + address not ordinarily collected by the project, without explicit permission > * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a > professional setting My understanding of the concern behind this change is that we should be able to use an email address for the current development practices, such as Reported-by, Suggested-by, etc tags when the email address was provided in what is a public space for the project. The public space is visible to anyone in the world who desires to access it. I do not understand how "ordinarily collected by the project" is equivalent to "an email address that was provided in a public space for the project". Ordinarily collected could include activities that can be expected to be private and not visible to any arbitrary person in the world. My issue is with the word choice. I agree with the underlying concept. -Frank ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 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 @ 2018-10-06 21:37 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-06 21:43 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Tim.Bird ` (5 more replies) 2018-10-07 17:11 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes Daniel Vetter 2 siblings, 6 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: James Bottomley @ 2018-10-06 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel 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. Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> --- Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------------- 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers. -Enforcement -=========== - -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at -<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be reviewed and -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. - -Maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may -face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the -project’s leadership. - Attribution =========== -- 2.13.7 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 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 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-07 3:33 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-07 15:32 ` Shuah Khan ` (4 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: Tim.Bird @ 2018-10-06 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James.Bottomley, ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel > -----Original Message----- > From: James Bottomley > > 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. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------------- > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social media account, or > acting as an appointed > representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may > be > further defined and clarified by project maintainers. > > -Enforcement > -=========== > - > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at > -<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be reviewed and > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. I think it's OK to leave the above section, as it doesn't speak to enforcement, but rather is just a set of reporting instructions, with an assurance of confidentiality. This seems to me not to be the objectionable part of this section. (IOW, I would omit this removal from the patch). If the next part is indeed removed, then maybe the section needs to be renamed? -- Tim > - > -Maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith > may > -face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other > members of the > -project’s leadership. > - > Attribution > =========== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 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 15:37 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 2 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: James Bottomley @ 2018-10-07 3:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tim.Bird, ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, 2018-10-06 at 21:43 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Bottomley > > > > 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. > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > > --- > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------------- > > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social media > > account, or > > acting as an appointed > > representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a > > project may > > be > > further defined and clarified by project maintainers. > > > > -Enforcement > > -=========== > > - > > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable > > behavior may be > > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at > > -<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be reviewed > > and > > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed > > necessary and > > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain > > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > incident. Further details of > > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. > > I think it's OK to leave the above section, as it doesn't speak to > enforcement, but rather is just a set of reporting instructions, > with an assurance of confidentiality. This seems to me not to be > the objectionable part of this section. > (IOW, I would omit this removal from the patch). So I did think about that, but it struck me that with both paragraphs removed, the current CoC is very similar to the status quo: namely every subsystem handles their own issues and that's formalised by the "Our Responsibilities" section. That also makes me think that whether we want a centralised channel of reporting or enforcement and what it should be also ought to be part of the debate. The TAB was created to channel community technical input into the Linux Foundation. That's not to say it can't provide the reporting and arbitration structure, but if we're going to do it right we should debate the expansion of its duties (and powers). I happen to think that the fact that the TAB cannot compel where it cannot persuade is a huge strength of the system because it means there's no power structure to subvert if someone were interested in using it to try to impose their own viewpoint on the community. But that's just my opinion and I did write the TAB charter, so I'm probably biased in this viewpoint. James > If the next part is indeed removed, then maybe the section > needs to be renamed? > -- Tim > > > - > > -Maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in > > good faith > > may > > -face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other > > members of the > > -project’s leadership. > > - > > Attribution > > =========== > > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-07 3:33 ` James Bottomley @ 2018-10-08 13:51 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-08 14:09 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-08 15:03 ` jonsmirl 2018-10-08 15:37 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 2 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Tim.Bird @ 2018-10-08 13:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James.Bottomley, ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel > -----Original Message----- > From: James Bottomley > On Sat, 2018-10-06 at 21:43 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: James Bottomley > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > > <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > > > --- > > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------------- > > > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social media > > > account, or > > > acting as an appointed > > > representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a > > > project may > > > be > > > further defined and clarified by project maintainers. > > > > > > -Enforcement > > > -=========== > > > - > > > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable > > > behavior may be > > > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at > > > -<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be reviewed > > > and > > > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed > > > necessary and > > > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain > > > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > > incident. Further details of > > > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. > > > > I think it's OK to leave the above section, as it doesn't speak to > > enforcement, but rather is just a set of reporting instructions, > > with an assurance of confidentiality. This seems to me not to be > > the objectionable part of this section. > > (IOW, I would omit this removal from the patch). > > So I did think about that, but it struck me that with both paragraphs > removed, the current CoC is very similar to the status quo: namely > every subsystem handles their own issues and that's formalised by the > "Our Responsibilities" section. That also makes me think that whether > we want a centralised channel of reporting or enforcement and what it > should be also ought to be part of the debate. The TAB was created to > channel community technical input into the Linux Foundation. That's > not to say it can't provide the reporting and arbitration structure, > but if we're going to do it right we should debate the expansion of its > duties (and powers). When the Code of Conflict was adopted 3 years ago, we already created the central reporting mechanism, so I actually think leaving (ie including) the above paragraph is closer to the status quo. I think it's the expanded powers and duties (or perception thereof) that are causing concern and I think debating those to clarify intent, and adopting changes as needed to ameliorate concerns is worthwhile. I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the TAB will end up performing a mediator role to smooth hurt feelings and remind and encourage improved communication - very similar to what we've done in the past. I really believe that bans will continue to be very few and far between, as they have been historically (I can only think of 3 in the past decade.) -- Tim ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-08 13:51 ` Tim.Bird @ 2018-10-08 14:09 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-08 17:58 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-08 15:03 ` jonsmirl 1 sibling, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: James Bottomley @ 2018-10-08 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tim.Bird, ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 13:51 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Bottomley > > On Sat, 2018-10-06 at 21:43 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: James Bottomley > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > > > <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > > > > --- > > > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------------- > > > > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social > > > > media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an > > > > online or offline event. Representation of a project may be > > > > further defined and clarified by project maintainers. > > > > > > > > -Enforcement > > > > -=========== > > > > - > > > > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable > > > > behavior may be > > > > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at > > > > -<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be > > > > reviewed and > > > > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed > > > > necessary and > > > > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to > > > > maintain > > > > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > > > incident. Further details of > > > > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. > > > > > > I think it's OK to leave the above section, as it doesn't speak > > > to enforcement, but rather is just a set of reporting > > > instructions, with an assurance of confidentiality. This seems > > > to me not to be the objectionable part of this section. > > > (IOW, I would omit this removal from the patch). > > > > So I did think about that, but it struck me that with both > > paragraphs removed, the current CoC is very similar to the status > > quo: namely every subsystem handles their own issues and that's > > formalised by the "Our Responsibilities" section. That also makes > > me think that whether we want a centralised channel of reporting or > > enforcement and what it should be also ought to be part of the > > debate. The TAB was created to channel community technical input > > into the Linux Foundation. That's not to say it can't provide the > > reporting and arbitration structure, but if we're going to do it > > right we should debate the expansion of its duties (and powers). > > When the Code of Conflict was adopted 3 years ago, we already created > the central reporting mechanism, so I actually think leaving (ie > including) the above paragraph is closer to the status quo. I think > it's the expanded powers and duties (or perception thereof) that are > causing concern and I think debating those to clarify intent, and > adopting changes as needed to ameliorate concerns is worthwhile. If we want to go back to the status quo, then a plain revert is the patch series I should submit. > I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the TAB will end up > performing a mediator role to smooth hurt feelings and remind and > encourage improved communication - very similar to what we've done in > the past. I really believe that bans will continue to be very few > and far between, as they have been historically (I can only think of > 3 in the past decade.) That might very well be the position the discussion arrives at; however, I really think making the process fully transparent this time requires not prejudging the outcome. James ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-08 14:09 ` James Bottomley @ 2018-10-08 17:58 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-08 18:11 ` James Bottomley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: Tim.Bird @ 2018-10-08 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James.Bottomley, ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel > -----Original Message----- > From: James Bottomley > > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 13:51 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: James Bottomley > > > On Sat, 2018-10-06 at 21:43 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: James Bottomley > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > > > > <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------------- > > > > > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 > > > > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social > > > > > media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an > > > > > online or offline event. Representation of a project may be > > > > > further defined and clarified by project maintainers. > > > > > > > > > > -Enforcement > > > > > -=========== > > > > > - > > > > > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable > > > > > behavior may be > > > > > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at > > > > > -<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be > > > > > reviewed and > > > > > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed > > > > > necessary and > > > > > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to > > > > > maintain > > > > > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > > > > incident. Further details of > > > > > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. > > > > > > > > I think it's OK to leave the above section, as it doesn't speak > > > > to enforcement, but rather is just a set of reporting > > > > instructions, with an assurance of confidentiality. This seems > > > > to me not to be the objectionable part of this section. > > > > (IOW, I would omit this removal from the patch). > > > > > > So I did think about that, but it struck me that with both > > > paragraphs removed, the current CoC is very similar to the status > > > quo: namely every subsystem handles their own issues and that's > > > formalised by the "Our Responsibilities" section. That also makes > > > me think that whether we want a centralised channel of reporting or > > > enforcement and what it should be also ought to be part of the > > > debate. The TAB was created to channel community technical input > > > into the Linux Foundation. That's not to say it can't provide the > > > reporting and arbitration structure, but if we're going to do it > > > right we should debate the expansion of its duties (and powers). > > > > When the Code of Conflict was adopted 3 years ago, we already created > > the central reporting mechanism, so I actually think leaving (ie > > including) the above paragraph is closer to the status quo. I think > > it's the expanded powers and duties (or perception thereof) that are > > causing concern and I think debating those to clarify intent, and > > adopting changes as needed to ameliorate concerns is worthwhile. > > If we want to go back to the status quo, then a plain revert is the > patch series I should submit. Let me try to be more clear. I don't want to go back to the status quo. I was saying that if we keep this document, but omit the central reporting mechanism, that is a large departure from the status quo, because the Code of Conflict already established that. And I think that having an ombudsman-type role somewhere in the community is beneficial. I believe parts of the Code of Conduct are an improvement over the Code of Conflict, so my personal preference would be to keep it and try to adjust it moving forward. I think your patches, with clear suggestions for improvements (or for deletions in the case where we want more debate on particular sections before adopting them) is a good approach, and I like that process as opposed to starting over from scratch. > > > I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the TAB will end up > > performing a mediator role to smooth hurt feelings and remind and > > encourage improved communication - very similar to what we've done in > > the past. I really believe that bans will continue to be very few > > and far between, as they have been historically (I can only think of > > 3 in the past decade.) > > That might very well be the position the discussion arrives at; > however, I really think making the process fully transparent this time > requires not prejudging the outcome. I don't understand your point here. Can you elaborate? Thanks, -- Tim ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-08 17:58 ` Tim.Bird @ 2018-10-08 18:11 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-08 18:54 ` Tim.Bird 0 siblings, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: James Bottomley @ 2018-10-08 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tim.Bird, ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 17:58 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Bottomley > > > > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 13:51 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: James Bottomley > > > > On Sat, 2018-10-06 at 21:43 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: James Bottomley > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > > > > > <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------- > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 > > > > > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social > > > > > > media account, or acting as an appointed representative at > > > > > > an > > > > > > online or offline event. Representation of a project may be > > > > > > further defined and clarified by project maintainers. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Enforcement > > > > > > -=========== > > > > > > - > > > > > > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable > > > > > > behavior may be > > > > > > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) > > > > > > at > > > > > > -<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be > > > > > > reviewed and > > > > > > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed > > > > > > necessary and > > > > > > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to > > > > > > maintain > > > > > > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > > > > > incident. Further details of > > > > > > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. > > > > > > > > > > I think it's OK to leave the above section, as it doesn't > > > > > speak > > > > > to enforcement, but rather is just a set of reporting > > > > > instructions, with an assurance of confidentiality. This > > > > > seems > > > > > to me not to be the objectionable part of this section. > > > > > (IOW, I would omit this removal from the patch). > > > > > > > > So I did think about that, but it struck me that with both > > > > paragraphs removed, the current CoC is very similar to the > > > > status quo: namely every subsystem handles their own issues and > > > > that's formalised by the "Our Responsibilities" section. That > > > > also makes me think that whether we want a centralised channel > > > > of reporting or enforcement and what it should be also ought to > > > > be part of the debate. The TAB was created to channel > > > > community technical input into the Linux Foundation. That's > > > > not to say it can't provide the reporting and arbitration > > > > structure, but if we're going to do it right we should debate > > > > the expansion of its duties (and powers). > > > > > > When the Code of Conflict was adopted 3 years ago, we already > > > created the central reporting mechanism, so I actually think > > > leaving (ie including) the above paragraph is closer to the > > > status quo. I think it's the expanded powers and duties (or > > > perception thereof) that are causing concern and I think debating > > > those to clarify intent, and adopting changes as needed to > > > ameliorate concerns is worthwhile. > > If we want to go back to the status quo, then a plain revert is the > > patch series I should submit. > > Let me try to be more clear. I don't want to go back to the status > quo. I was saying that if we keep this document, but omit the central > reporting mechanism, that is a large departure from the status quo, > because the Code of Conflict already established that. And I think > that having an ombudsman-type role somewhere in the community > is beneficial. The purpose of this patch is not to be the final point but to take us up to a useful starting point for Shuah's CoC debate proposal at the kernel summit (and beyond). Shuah asked that I clarify this in the commit message, so I will in v2. > I believe parts of the Code of Conduct are an improvement over the > Code of Conflict, so my personal preference would be to keep it > and try to adjust it moving forward. I think your patches, with > clear suggestions for improvements (or for deletions in the case > where we want more debate on particular sections before adopting > them) is a good approach, and I like that process as opposed to > starting over from scratch. OK, so you're happy with the current patch as the starting not the ending point? > > > I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the TAB will end up > > > performing a mediator role to smooth hurt feelings and remind and > > > encourage improved communication - very similar to what we've > > > done in the past. I really believe that bans will continue to be > > > very few and far between, as they have been historically (I can > > > only think of 3 in the past decade.) > > > > That might very well be the position the discussion arrives at; > > however, I really think making the process fully transparent this > > time requires not prejudging the outcome. > > I don't understand your point here. Can you elaborate? Yes: I could foresee an outcome where the kernel community decides to vest CoC enforcement in a different body from the TAB, or even in no body but an informal maintainers list. I'm not saying that *will* happen, merely that it's an outcome that should not be foreclosed at this point. James ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-08 18:11 ` James Bottomley @ 2018-10-08 18:54 ` Tim.Bird 0 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Tim.Bird @ 2018-10-08 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James.Bottomley, ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel > -----Original Message----- > From: James Bottomley > > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 17:58 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: James Bottomley > > > > > > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 13:51 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: James Bottomley > > > > > On Sat, 2018-10-06 at 21:43 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: James Bottomley > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > > > > > > <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------- > > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > > > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > > > > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social > > > > > > > media account, or acting as an appointed representative at > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > online or offline event. Representation of a project may be > > > > > > > further defined and clarified by project maintainers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Enforcement > > > > > > > -=========== > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable > > > > > > > behavior may be > > > > > > > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > -<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be > > > > > > > reviewed and > > > > > > > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed > > > > > > > necessary and > > > > > > > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to > > > > > > > maintain > > > > > > > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > > > > > > incident. Further details of > > > > > > > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's OK to leave the above section, as it doesn't > > > > > > speak > > > > > > to enforcement, but rather is just a set of reporting > > > > > > instructions, with an assurance of confidentiality. This > > > > > > seems > > > > > > to me not to be the objectionable part of this section. > > > > > > (IOW, I would omit this removal from the patch). > > > > > > > > > > So I did think about that, but it struck me that with both > > > > > paragraphs removed, the current CoC is very similar to the > > > > > status quo: namely every subsystem handles their own issues and > > > > > that's formalised by the "Our Responsibilities" section. That > > > > > also makes me think that whether we want a centralised channel > > > > > of reporting or enforcement and what it should be also ought to > > > > > be part of the debate. The TAB was created to channel > > > > > community technical input into the Linux Foundation. That's > > > > > not to say it can't provide the reporting and arbitration > > > > > structure, but if we're going to do it right we should debate > > > > > the expansion of its duties (and powers). > > > > > > > > When the Code of Conflict was adopted 3 years ago, we already > > > > created the central reporting mechanism, so I actually think > > > > leaving (ie including) the above paragraph is closer to the > > > > status quo. I think it's the expanded powers and duties (or > > > > perception thereof) that are causing concern and I think debating > > > > those to clarify intent, and adopting changes as needed to > > > > ameliorate concerns is worthwhile. > > > If we want to go back to the status quo, then a plain revert is the > > > patch series I should submit. > > > > Let me try to be more clear. I don't want to go back to the status > > quo. I was saying that if we keep this document, but omit the central > > reporting mechanism, that is a large departure from the status quo, > > because the Code of Conflict already established that. And I think > > that having an ombudsman-type role somewhere in the community > > is beneficial. > > The purpose of this patch is not to be the final point but to take us > up to a useful starting point for Shuah's CoC debate proposal at the > kernel summit (and beyond). Shuah asked that I clarify this in the > commit message, so I will in v2. > > > I believe parts of the Code of Conduct are an improvement over the > > Code of Conflict, so my personal preference would be to keep it > > and try to adjust it moving forward. I think your patches, with > > clear suggestions for improvements (or for deletions in the case > > where we want more debate on particular sections before adopting > > them) is a good approach, and I like that process as opposed to > > starting over from scratch. > > OK, so you're happy with the current patch as the starting not the > ending point? I'm happy with the second hunk as a starting point, but not the first. I think the first hunk is a regression that is not needed to address the concerns that I have seen raised so far. The first hunk seems to me to be close to what the Code of Conflict already had, and what the community was already working under. > > > > I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the TAB will end up > > > > performing a mediator role to smooth hurt feelings and remind and > > > > encourage improved communication - very similar to what we've > > > > done in the past. I really believe that bans will continue to be > > > > very few and far between, as they have been historically (I can > > > > only think of 3 in the past decade.) > > > > > > That might very well be the position the discussion arrives at; > > > however, I really think making the process fully transparent this > > > time requires not prejudging the outcome. > > > > I don't understand your point here. Can you elaborate? > > Yes: I could foresee an outcome where the kernel community decides to > vest CoC enforcement in a different body from the TAB, or even in no > body but an informal maintainers list. I'm not saying that *will* > happen, merely that it's an outcome that should not be foreclosed at > this point. OK, thanks for the explanation. I don't have a strong opinion about the resulting outcome of community consensus. I think we'll come up with something that satisfies most people, and it's possible it won't look like what we have now. So I'd agree we shouldn't foreclose outcomes. I hope it doesn't look like I'm *just* arguing for keeping the TAB in some enforcement role. I'm not. I'm arguing that the current CoC language (in the first paragraph of the enforcement section) keeps the TAB as the central reporting mechanism, and that this is less of a change to current policy than removing it. If people want to argue for a difference in central reporting, or no central reporting at all, I'm all ears. (Although, I'm not sure my ears count for anything. That's up to whoever accepts such patches, and that's not me.) Put a completely different way: I believe the goal of the patch is to remove parts of the new CoC that people have concerns about, pending a community discussion about the issues. My personal opinion is that the first part of the enforcement clause, listing the TAB as the contact point, and trying to make an assurance of confidentiality, doesn't have to be part of that removal (now), because it's not very controversial. -- Tim ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-08 13:51 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-08 14:09 ` James Bottomley @ 2018-10-08 15:03 ` jonsmirl 1 sibling, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: jonsmirl @ 2018-10-08 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tim.Bird; +Cc: James Bottomley, ksummit-discuss, lkml On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:51 AM <Tim.Bird@sony.com> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Bottomley > > On Sat, 2018-10-06 at 21:43 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: James Bottomley > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > > > <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > > > > --- > > > > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------------- > > > > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > > > > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social media > > > > account, or > > > > acting as an appointed > > > > representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a > > > > project may > > > > be > > > > further defined and clarified by project maintainers. > > > > > > > > -Enforcement > > > > -=========== > > > > - > > > > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable > > > > behavior may be > > > > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at > > > > -<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be reviewed > > > > and > > > > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed > > > > necessary and > > > > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain > > > > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > > > incident. Further details of > > > > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. > > > > > > I think it's OK to leave the above section, as it doesn't speak to > > > enforcement, but rather is just a set of reporting instructions, > > > with an assurance of confidentiality. This seems to me not to be > > > the objectionable part of this section. > > > (IOW, I would omit this removal from the patch). > > > > So I did think about that, but it struck me that with both paragraphs > > removed, the current CoC is very similar to the status quo: namely > > every subsystem handles their own issues and that's formalised by the > > "Our Responsibilities" section. That also makes me think that whether > > we want a centralised channel of reporting or enforcement and what it > > should be also ought to be part of the debate. The TAB was created to > > channel community technical input into the Linux Foundation. That's > > not to say it can't provide the reporting and arbitration structure, > > but if we're going to do it right we should debate the expansion of its > > duties (and powers). > > When the Code of Conflict was adopted 3 years ago, we already created > the central reporting mechanism, so I actually think leaving (ie including) the above > paragraph is closer to the status quo. I think it's the expanded powers and > duties (or perception thereof) that are causing concern and I think debating > those to clarify intent, and adopting changes as needed to ameliorate concerns > is worthwhile. In most cases any CoC is not going to be much of a problem. The problem is going to occur when one of the top five or so people is accused of a violation. That is going to end up in the mainstream press. Big money and corporate power will be at play. The CoC needs needs to be designed to handle something like the Bredan Eich situation. In that situation he was initially attacked by external parties. I will keep recommending that the legal community weigh in before making this official policy. We are focusing on the case of the random individual, but I suspect the problem lies in an attack on the leadership. > > I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the TAB will end up > performing a mediator role to smooth hurt feelings and remind and encourage > improved communication - very similar to what we've done in the past. I really > believe that bans will continue to be very few and far between, as they have > been historically (I can only think of 3 in the past decade.) > -- Tim > > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-07 3:33 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-08 13:51 ` Tim.Bird @ 2018-10-08 15:37 ` Alan Cox 2018-10-11 7:42 ` Dan Carpenter 1 sibling, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2018-10-08 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley; +Cc: Tim.Bird, ksummit-discuss, linux-kernel > I happen to think that the fact that the TAB cannot compel where it > cannot persuade is a huge strength of the system because it means > there's no power structure to subvert if someone were interested in > using it to try to impose their own viewpoint on the community. But > that's just my opinion and I did write the TAB charter, so I'm probably > biased in this viewpoint. The TAB can't handle it anyway because the privacy promise about reporting is incompatible with reality for three reasons (and I bet there are more) 1. Things like the EUCD can force almost all but the name to be revealed to the person complained about as the tab has no legal privilege. 2. There are lots of laws in lots of locations where some allegations *MUST* be reported to law enforcement. 3. We know from things like the catholic church debacle that serious allegations need to be fast-pathed to the legal system - yet the privacy promises are incompatible with that. It ever got really nasty then the scenario that unfolds is potentially the following Developer A makes a complaint about developer B Developer B's employer fires developer B Developer B then uses things like the EUCD to force the TAB to provide the complaint details (with personal data redacted) and the TAB has no real defence as it's not legally privileged. Developer B then sues developer A, the TAB for all sorts of things, the LF and their employer. In court what's going to happen to the TAB ? = Where is your written policy ? = Who approved it and reviewed it for legal compliance ? = What are your qualifications in this area ? = Where are the full minutes of the decision ? = Which of you work for rival companies ? = What personal connections do or your frends have to A and B ? Needless to say answers like 'we don't have one, nobody, none, umm I think there's an email thread' are not going to go down well. This sort of mess works with big company HR departments because they've got lawyers and they have lots of written process. If it hits a court then B's employer is able to point at all their rules and policies, employment contracts etc. All of the decisions were either legally privileged or minuted properly. The people who made the decisions have appropriate professional qualifications. The TAB can't enforce anything. If maintainers decide to carry on accepting patches from someone what can they do ? So both patches: Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@llwyncelyn.cymru> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-08 15:37 ` Alan Cox @ 2018-10-11 7:42 ` Dan Carpenter 0 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Dan Carpenter @ 2018-10-11 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: James Bottomley, Tim.Bird, linux-kernel, ksummit-discuss On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:37:48PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > I happen to think that the fact that the TAB cannot compel where it > > cannot persuade is a huge strength of the system because it means > > there's no power structure to subvert if someone were interested in > > using it to try to impose their own viewpoint on the community. But > > that's just my opinion and I did write the TAB charter, so I'm probably > > biased in this viewpoint. > > The TAB can't handle it anyway because the privacy promise about > reporting is incompatible with reality for three reasons (and I bet there > are more) Really you want to keep any reporting private from people on the TAB because they're going to be interviewing you for a job in a couple years. regards, dan carpenter ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 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 15:32 ` Shuah Khan 2018-10-07 17:56 ` Guenter Roeck ` (3 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Shuah Khan @ 2018-10-07 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley, ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel, Shuah Khan On 10/06/2018 03:37 PM, 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. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------------- > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed > representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be > further defined and clarified by project maintainers. > > -Enforcement > -=========== > - > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at > -<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be reviewed and > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. > - > -Maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may > -face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the > -project’s leadership. > - > Attribution > =========== > > With the assumption that the enforcement details will be added later after community discussion in upcoming releases. Acked-by: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> thanks, -- Shuah ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 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 15:32 ` Shuah Khan @ 2018-10-07 17:56 ` Guenter Roeck 2018-10-07 19:51 ` Geert Uytterhoeven ` (2 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Guenter Roeck @ 2018-10-07 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley, ksummit-discuss; +Cc: linux-kernel On 10/06/2018 02:37 PM, 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. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> Reasoning: - The TAB was not elected as enforcement agency. - I, as a maintainer, was not consulted when it was decided that I shall be responsible for enforcing the Code of Conduct. Guenter > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------------- > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed > representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be > further defined and clarified by project maintainers. > > -Enforcement > -=========== > - > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at > -<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be reviewed and > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. > - > -Maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may > -face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the > -project’s leadership. > - > Attribution > =========== > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-06 21:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion James Bottomley ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2018-10-07 17:56 ` Guenter Roeck @ 2018-10-07 19:51 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-08 18:15 ` Chris Mason 2018-10-08 20:23 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 5 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2018-10-07 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley; +Cc: ksummit-discuss, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:37 PM James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> 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. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> Fixes: 8a104f8b5867c682 ("Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.") Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-06 21:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion James Bottomley ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2018-10-07 19:51 ` Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2018-10-08 18:15 ` Chris Mason 2018-10-08 19:04 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Josh Triplett 2018-10-08 20:23 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 5 siblings, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: Chris Mason @ 2018-10-08 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley; +Cc: ksummit-discuss, linux-kernel 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. -chris ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-08 18:15 ` Chris Mason @ 2018-10-08 19:04 ` Josh Triplett 0 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Josh Triplett @ 2018-10-08 19:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chris Mason; +Cc: James Bottomley, linux-kernel, ksummit-discuss 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-06 21:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion James Bottomley ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2018-10-08 18:15 ` Chris Mason @ 2018-10-08 20:23 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-10 15:53 ` Alan Cox 5 siblings, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab @ 2018-10-08 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley; +Cc: ksummit-discuss, linux-kernel Em Sat, 06 Oct 2018 14:37:31 -0700 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> escreveu: > 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. > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> With my maintainer's hat, my main concern would be solved with this hunk: diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst index ab7c24b5478c..f07d51129d4b 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ Maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior. -Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject +Maintainers may remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, The previous text seems too much legal for my taste. > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------------- > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed > representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be > further defined and clarified by project maintainers. > > -Enforcement > -=========== > - > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at > -<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be reviewed and > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. > - > -Maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may > -face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the > -project’s leadership. > - > Attribution > =========== After looking at the comments, I would just keep TAB as a point of contact for CoC violations: diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst index ab7c24b5478c..fa908dbff51c 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst @@ -59,20 +59,12 @@ address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers. -Enforcement -=========== +Reports +======= Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at -<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be reviewed and -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. - -Maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may -face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the -project’s leadership. +<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. Attribution =========== Keeping the rest implicit. This can be revisited after having more discussions. Thanks, Mauro - Both hunks are shown below. diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst index ab7c24b5478c..df44867a2db5 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ Maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior. -Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject +Maintainers may remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, @@ -59,20 +59,12 @@ address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers. -Enforcement -=========== +Reports +======= Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at -<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be reviewed and -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. - -Maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may -face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the -project’s leadership. +<tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. Attribution =========== ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-08 20:23 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab @ 2018-10-10 15:53 ` Alan Cox 2018-10-10 17:19 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 0 siblings, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2018-10-10 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab; +Cc: James Bottomley, ksummit-discuss, linux-kernel > -Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject > +Maintainers may remove, edit, or reject > comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are > not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any > contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, > > The previous text seems too much legal for my taste. > That is just as confusing. Maintainers have the right to remove, edit, reject commits that *are* aligned with the code as well. So what exactly is the point here ? Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-10 15:53 ` Alan Cox @ 2018-10-10 17:19 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2018-10-10 20:09 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab @ 2018-10-10 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: James Bottomley, ksummit-discuss, linux-kernel Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:53:08 +0100 Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> escreveu: > > -Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject > > +Maintainers may remove, edit, or reject > > comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are > > not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any > > contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, > > > > The previous text seems too much legal for my taste. > > > > That is just as confusing. Maintainers have the right to remove, edit, > reject commits that *are* aligned with the code as well. Good point. Yeah, a maintainer can do whatever he thinks it is appropriate for a patch - even when it follows the CoC. > So what exactly is the point here ? The point is "responsibility" - that sounds like it is bounding a legal duty to a maintainer. While this makes sense for Github (as the company doesn't want to be responsible for sanitizing every single post), this doesn't work for e-mail based workflow, where the message is stored on a distributed way, as a maintainer can't "remove, edit or reject" an e-mail. Thanks, Mauro ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-10 17:19 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab @ 2018-10-10 20:09 ` Alan Cox 2018-10-10 20:30 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 0 siblings, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2018-10-10 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab; +Cc: James Bottomley, ksummit-discuss, linux-kernel On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:19:17 -0300 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org> wrote: > Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:53:08 +0100 > Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> escreveu: > > > > -Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject > > > +Maintainers may remove, edit, or reject > > > comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are > > > not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any > > > contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, > > > > > > The previous text seems too much legal for my taste. > > > > > > > That is just as confusing. Maintainers have the right to remove, edit, > > reject commits that *are* aligned with the code as well. > > Good point. Yeah, a maintainer can do whatever he thinks it is > appropriate for a patch - even when it follows the CoC. > > > So what exactly is the point here ? > > The point is "responsibility" - that sounds like it is bounding a legal > duty to a maintainer. If you remove the responsibility aspect you might as well remove the entire clause. It doesn't say anything as it's simply a subset of what maintainers do anyway. So how about "Maintainers should remove, edit or reject..." that keeps the sense that there should be pressure against abusive behaviour. except of course someone will attach a zero day exploit and fix to a coc-violating rant and then you are a bit stuffed 8) Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion 2018-10-10 20:09 ` Alan Cox @ 2018-10-10 20:30 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 0 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab @ 2018-10-10 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: James Bottomley, ksummit-discuss, linux-kernel Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 21:09:48 +0100 Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> escreveu: > On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:19:17 -0300 > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org> wrote: > > > Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:53:08 +0100 > > Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> escreveu: > > > > > > -Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject > > > > +Maintainers may remove, edit, or reject > > > > comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are > > > > not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any > > > > contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, > > > > > > > > The previous text seems too much legal for my taste. > > > > > > > > > > That is just as confusing. Maintainers have the right to remove, edit, > > > reject commits that *are* aligned with the code as well. > > > > Good point. Yeah, a maintainer can do whatever he thinks it is > > appropriate for a patch - even when it follows the CoC. > > > > > So what exactly is the point here ? > > > > The point is "responsibility" - that sounds like it is bounding a legal > > duty to a maintainer. > > If you remove the responsibility aspect you might as well remove the > entire clause. It doesn't say anything as it's simply a subset of what > maintainers do anyway. > > So how about > > "Maintainers should remove, edit or reject..." > > that keeps the sense that there should be pressure against abusive > behaviour. Works for me. > except of course someone will attach a zero day exploit and fix to a > coc-violating rant and then you are a bit stuffed 8) :-) Thanks, Mauro ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes 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 2018-10-06 21:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion James Bottomley @ 2018-10-07 17:11 ` Daniel Vetter 2018-10-07 17:40 ` James Bottomley 2 siblings, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2018-10-07 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley; +Cc: ksummit, Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi James, On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > We've had several threads discussing potential changes to the code of > conduct but Mauro is the only person to have proposed an actual patch. > In order to move the debate on, I'm presenting two patches, one to fix > the email problem Mauro identified and the other to strip the > enforcement section pending community discussion as Shuah suggested. > > I'll take responsibility for collecting any tags people want to add > (review/ack/sign off, etc) and sending the patch in as a signed pull > request before 4.19 final if they get enough community support. > > Note, I've sent both patches in as a series to facilitate review and > discussion, but they are separable if one is looked on with less favour > than the other. > > It was also a bit unclear which list to send this to, but I finally > settled on linux-kernel as the catch all and ksummit-discuss since > that's where most of the current discussion is. I can add other lists > as people suggest them. 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. For all the same reasons I don't think it's a good idea to now rush in a few edits, just a few days before the 4.19 release. In my experience, and I've discussed code of conducts and their enforcement for years even before we implemented the fd.o/dri-devel one, mailing lists aren't the best place to have this discussion. Definitely not under the time pressure of just a few days to get it all sorted. I hope that we can have these discussiones at the maintainer summit and kernel summit/plumbers, and will have more clarity in a few weeks (probably more likely months). 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." would make this clear and ameliorate the concerns from many people about the open questions we still have, at least for now. This would give us the time to discuss all the details properly and with all due deliberation. I'm travelling next week, so not the right guy to push this, but I'd be happy to ack such a patch (or something along the same lines). I also believe that this statement is undisputed enough that we can gather widespread support for it in the few days left until 4.19 ships to make it happen. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes 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 ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: James Bottomley @ 2018-10-07 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Vetter; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, ksummit On Sun, 2018-10-07 at 19:11 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Hi James, > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > We've had several threads discussing potential changes to the code > > of > > conduct but Mauro is the only person to have proposed an actual > > patch. > > In order to move the debate on, I'm presenting two patches, one to > > fix > > the email problem Mauro identified and the other to strip the > > enforcement section pending community discussion as Shuah > > suggested. > > > > I'll take responsibility for collecting any tags people want to add > > (review/ack/sign off, etc) and sending the patch in as a signed > > pull > > request before 4.19 final if they get enough community support. > > > > Note, I've sent both patches in as a series to facilitate review > > and > > discussion, but they are separable if one is looked on with less > > favour > > than the other. > > > > It was also a bit unclear which list to send this to, but I finally > > settled on linux-kernel as the catch all and ksummit-discuss since > > that's where most of the current discussion is. I can add other > > lists > > as people suggest them. > > 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. > > For all the same reasons I don't think it's a good idea to now rush > in a few edits, just a few days before the 4.19 release. In my > experience, and I've discussed code of conducts and their enforcement > for years even before we implemented the fd.o/dri-devel one, mailing > lists aren't the best place to have this discussion. Definitely not > under the time pressure of just a few days to get it all sorted. I > hope that we can have these discussiones at the maintainer summit and > kernel summit/plumbers, and will have more clarity in a few weeks > (probably more likely months). > > 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. My preference is to try to fix what we have instead of starting over, but it's not a strong one, so if people want to go for the revert instead of the amendment, I'd be happy to redo the patch series with that. James > would make this clear and ameliorate the concerns from many people > about the open questions we still have, at least for now. This would > give us the time to discuss all the details properly and with all due > deliberation. I'm travelling next week, so not the right guy to push > this, but I'd be happy to ack such a patch (or something along the > same lines). I also believe that this statement is undisputed enough > that we can gather widespread support for it in the few days left > until 4.19 ships to make it happen. > > Thanks, Daniel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes 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 2 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: jonsmirl @ 2018-10-07 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley; +Cc: daniel.vetter, lkml, ksummit-discuss On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 1:42 PM James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-10-07 at 19:11 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley > > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > > We've had several threads discussing potential changes to the code > > > of > > > conduct but Mauro is the only person to have proposed an actual > > > patch. > > > In order to move the debate on, I'm presenting two patches, one to > > > fix > > > the email problem Mauro identified and the other to strip the > > > enforcement section pending community discussion as Shuah > > > suggested. > > > > > > I'll take responsibility for collecting any tags people want to add > > > (review/ack/sign off, etc) and sending the patch in as a signed > > > pull > > > request before 4.19 final if they get enough community support. > > > > > > Note, I've sent both patches in as a series to facilitate review > > > and > > > discussion, but they are separable if one is looked on with less > > > favour > > > than the other. > > > > > > It was also a bit unclear which list to send this to, but I finally > > > settled on linux-kernel as the catch all and ksummit-discuss since > > > that's where most of the current discussion is. I can add other > > > lists > > > as people suggest them. > > > > 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. As far as I know none of the usual open source friendly lawyers have reviewed and commented. I suspect this document is on shaky legal ground and it needs a vetting from the legal community. For example, is the CoC simply guidance or it is a legal contract? I don't know enough about the law to answer that. > > > > For all the same reasons I don't think it's a good idea to now rush > > in a few edits, just a few days before the 4.19 release. In my > > experience, and I've discussed code of conducts and their enforcement > > for years even before we implemented the fd.o/dri-devel one, mailing > > lists aren't the best place to have this discussion. Definitely not > > under the time pressure of just a few days to get it all sorted. I > > hope that we can have these discussiones at the maintainer summit and > > kernel summit/plumbers, and will have more clarity in a few weeks > > (probably more likely months). > > > > 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. > > My preference is to try to fix what we have instead of starting over, > but it's not a strong one, so if people want to go for the revert > instead of the amendment, I'd be happy to redo the patch series with > that. > > James > > > > would make this clear and ameliorate the concerns from many people > > about the open questions we still have, at least for now. This would > > give us the time to discuss all the details properly and with all due > > deliberation. I'm travelling next week, so not the right guy to push > > this, but I'd be happy to ack such a patch (or something along the > > same lines). I also believe that this statement is undisputed enough > > that we can gather widespread support for it in the few days left > > until 4.19 ships to make it happen. > > > > Thanks, Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes 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 2 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Daniel Vetter @ 2018-10-07 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, ksummit On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 7:40 PM James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-10-07 at 19:11 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley > > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > > > We've had several threads discussing potential changes to the code > > > of > > > conduct but Mauro is the only person to have proposed an actual > > > patch. > > > In order to move the debate on, I'm presenting two patches, one to > > > fix > > > the email problem Mauro identified and the other to strip the > > > enforcement section pending community discussion as Shuah > > > suggested. > > > > > > I'll take responsibility for collecting any tags people want to add > > > (review/ack/sign off, etc) and sending the patch in as a signed > > > pull > > > request before 4.19 final if they get enough community support. > > > > > > Note, I've sent both patches in as a series to facilitate review > > > and > > > discussion, but they are separable if one is looked on with less > > > favour > > > than the other. > > > > > > It was also a bit unclear which list to send this to, but I finally > > > settled on linux-kernel as the catch all and ksummit-discuss since > > > that's where most of the current discussion is. I can add other > > > lists > > > as people suggest them. > > > > 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. > > > > For all the same reasons I don't think it's a good idea to now rush > > in a few edits, just a few days before the 4.19 release. In my > > experience, and I've discussed code of conducts and their enforcement > > for years even before we implemented the fd.o/dri-devel one, mailing > > lists aren't the best place to have this discussion. Definitely not > > under the time pressure of just a few days to get it all sorted. I > > hope that we can have these discussiones at the maintainer summit and > > kernel summit/plumbers, and will have more clarity in a few weeks > > (probably more likely months). > > > > 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. > > My preference is to try to fix what we have instead of starting over, > but it's not a strong one, so if people want to go for the revert > instead of the amendment, I'd be happy to redo the patch series with > that. I thought about adding something like "meanwhile the old Code of Conflict stays in effect", but that already felt like editorializing, and so could prevent the big pile of acks I think we need for any such change. That's why I tried to limit my suggestion as much as possible to stricly undisputed facts only (we _are_ discussing it still after all). Personally I don't want to ack or nack any concrete changes (including going back to the old one, if temporarily), as long as Linus hasn't clarified why this was rushed and why he felt the change was necessary. Long term I'm all for getting this right of course, but figuring out what "right" is in the context of the linux kernel community will take a while longer than what we have until 4.19 ships (even with the 1 week extension, just read the -rc7 release announcement).. Thanks, Daniel > > would make this clear and ameliorate the concerns from many people > > about the open questions we still have, at least for now. This would > > give us the time to discuss all the details properly and with all due > > deliberation. I'm travelling next week, so not the right guy to push > > this, but I'd be happy to ack such a patch (or something along the > > same lines). I also believe that this statement is undisputed enough > > that we can gather widespread support for it in the few days left > > until 4.19 ships to make it happen. > > > > Thanks, Daniel > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes 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 2 siblings, 1 reply; 59+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2018-10-10 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Bottomley; +Cc: Daniel Vetter, Linux Kernel Mailing List, ksummit [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1371 bytes --] 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. > > 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.) Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes 2018-10-10 16:12 ` Pavel Machek @ 2018-10-10 16:25 ` Randy Dunlap 0 siblings, 0 replies; 59+ messages in thread From: Randy Dunlap @ 2018-10-10 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek, James Bottomley; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, ksummit 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 59+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-10-11 7:42 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 59+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 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 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Josh Triplett 2018-10-08 20:23 ` 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
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).