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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED 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 54254C65C1B for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2018 17:11:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BE020644 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2018 17:11:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ffwll.ch header.i=@ffwll.ch header.b="ZO/fMUc0" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 82BE020644 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ffwll.ch 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 S1728270AbeJHATX (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Oct 2018 20:19:23 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f67.google.com ([209.85.166.67]:46544 "EHLO mail-io1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727707AbeJHATX (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Oct 2018 20:19:23 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f67.google.com with SMTP id t7-v6so14160798ioj.13 for ; Sun, 07 Oct 2018 10:11:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ffwll.ch; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XdoF9j7UBMBaavdMfRf9/McfiVJ/XSSbHcET8rv6DZs=; b=ZO/fMUc0XC03eeSY8rkieCgV47L84FkDKebM7NCfj+rnmZde4FeJlotrhs2+dsb2Z6 AxRv9c/XpDhEEn8qzwB2m2iAm6iyGq7FYcxkGGUGCSYWE5awwvm2DYo+HcFBbX3XvrhA Lp6M+TZKR0iDXL1WsThSXVLrH8GYjepes9JhY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XdoF9j7UBMBaavdMfRf9/McfiVJ/XSSbHcET8rv6DZs=; b=XChN4gMjz6alqolezZwve6NH3uHWGE61F2vtrWOYcZQUSx1rpODekT7Lky+wMz5wgJ MmJcD1F7a2SGaTNdaCeqVpPvdx5tw+iXH+r0zToPxazC2WA/I4p0VTrOa5SrWRX75Yrl XbU+vsdyCiLZVFCRdN6QmzGn9K7piLCZZGwtCbs1Pj6JyGdUmUTPCKTSL9iPJQxri7bM HFndBR6E7HTIKI09s5eSlWRgdxjlJh2/IiLna/O9RZEQCdVSG5saztS76rlW8D8aLN67 QCKdrHF6CoXbuXsbaEodPeaanHXuRfFUgYD7k+wO9eOQKyf3mq5AE2yN3sTB+WwS5MLd /EpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohhn/TxbEQz7fMEK5ne4/Ae8tUc1k6UBKao5sZhcXdo9/vMHbvQ Fh1mmus+KN9RigaqwjOaWfTDdmSXMn+jQwnurGbZskw/ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60NyHXQcqKmLT520QcKIWxwop30uCbnh6zy/wROPt2tYzHrkTpgzJR5caW2k3BpUbHiQ0WavHFdJw6A+xmgFTw= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:d51a:: with SMTP id e26-v6mr9611344iom.291.1538932287189; Sun, 07 Oct 2018 10:11:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> In-Reply-To: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: Daniel Vetter Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 19:11:14 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes To: James Bottomley Cc: ksummit , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi James, On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley 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