From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C41ECDE43 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 22:38:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BFE520836 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 22:38:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="cgZA44ro" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2BFE520836 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727604AbeJVGx6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:53:58 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:59324 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725882AbeJVGx6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:53:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To: Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=UxTtDweeEmbz0aNhAVxMT15+955XBRQ8J7mhXpqZKSs=; b=cgZA44roaHEC0vHX15WaEPZoo F5eK623XYAU7hE23J4hqbrWQK3v6hB23uNotHqqQkhqneH6aVpdUAiPMiZYx68Ph6ma50uoKDYd0g 6Idn3QIX/kbCFyy2hzmcWyNod+Kgak47Zr2BU5212GGwzZOIxFKIxnOTjiobmuB33PDp4xZt8hC6Q OPIOPwm3DIqzjIj0xHZatBjbFJ6etCuYLegsIfbXo7vK1wxN0O+LZLScZ7w72QuiyRH1V+3BkHLes FxeABdchtyOSBu5IdSDXFPM66EveBqAZbHp5Ioljd/xCgrJACVZIxRRFiUfr8pUf5FYICyoKF2BBX OtzlNB9+Q==; Received: from static-50-53-52-16.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net ([50.53.52.16] helo=midway.dunlab) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1gEMME-0007lT-Bb; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 22:38:02 +0000 Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document To: Joe Perches , NeilBrown , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel , Linus Torvalds Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Mishi Choudhary References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com> <87y3ar80ac.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> From: Randy Dunlap Message-ID: <62b70ccb-9484-7842-e57a-9697946636c3@infradead.org> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 15:37:58 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/21/18 3:33 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 08:20 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 20 2018, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> As everyone knows by now, we added a new Code of Conduct to the kernel >>> tree a few weeks ago. >> >> I wanted to stay detached from all this, but as remaining (publicly) >> silent might be seen (publicly) as acquiescing, I hereby declare that: >> I reject, as illegitimate, this Code and the process by >> which it is being "developed". > [] >> I call on any other community members who reject this process to say so, >> not to remain silent. > > The concept of describing a desire for pleasant interactions > while > developing the linux kernel is legitimate and useful. Agree. > I do reject this process as well and I think the attempt to > reform it via a private, non-public method is, at best, > poor form. and Agree. > Joe Perches Thanks. -- ~Randy