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_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 33B9FC65C1B for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2018 17:51:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90942087D for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2018 17:51:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="UHWuMyKu" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D90942087D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com 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 S1728048AbeJHA7M (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Oct 2018 20:59:12 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f193.google.com ([209.85.214.193]:39236 "EHLO mail-pl1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727658AbeJHA7L (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Oct 2018 20:59:11 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f193.google.com with SMTP id w14-v6so9011861plp.6 for ; Sun, 07 Oct 2018 10:51:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jdHfr+oJYsCNSjRpa6DJVw4SA4PzWsHtuVbL2FD7mZY=; b=UHWuMyKukEpcslgCMN6ztP5bL1lrQDvJn6PM8ColT66z6w+ej1Hp3vLIhQow5ckOIY XinBlJrMKDu17zOX4Ms6KkBQLlXMnPF7e/QXSjkQh4Is+f8BebPRs0WQZPDuyugeLaoX llPR/OwMBPfjUnINkZk8mCxBZAu1LSdUK4jbE39ZALoLUt0G9KXHaC+xe9pX7+LwKPWD CwupHUbPvxsr5lrVLwQGT+NwrkbaceBjj22p4nnlGJEvhm+pp6ZBwQ7UqY5FMCuYTF37 GwKOEnoN9QuUAVLF1a1Lp6cl9cZsNsPUr6x/beP4103x0csD/ajHlcBXlCzahY5FVRTp /7tQ== 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=jdHfr+oJYsCNSjRpa6DJVw4SA4PzWsHtuVbL2FD7mZY=; b=h1HicsX+mUbxbsd1x1UGAVwIXfJhQ2Tkp9XW8ZEONZ1Dk/cctLl4LMx2mGWCRGH2Bc a9L+JfKYU64hYsRpHQgdcbhzK0si7lnKlGV001PizvxyDnVbjDNihH5Hb9oyPUFzwhZi 9yhB31IVm/7IrhF/uypTK1SfkKtHGLpx+NiW3QN9QzXZ5YgBcuYHCYK32/xBCxFpbdRJ 2f7P7ys+0IGdJpEjAmi1QhtctkWGEjjD/Jt7nYVikXsAEAe6+dfxvKtfMgZF6m90/xKE w7LFcDuWaNzDYBiYpJfzL5Bup3uYhEZ/D+f7BT62QF+hmOgmF7hV8iIG0OieYf3BLFYP V2DQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoj2RyyFHzW6j7qg9UEL4KcRgM31viWfNy5Ih4xk1iPlVSbxgO1f HI57k1CDMRzbkcgT026Q03kRyxmig+hAMw8dMkDHTg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62GD7aKztaHlXFWuCsj6RNvAINZvKe4C9XfMVI8ZyrVIU/6nBEbLa9euvs07vtFctnnq3WndbMEaGYWlLMRn5M= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a716:: with SMTP id w22-v6mr6099670plq.334.1538934669037; Sun, 07 Oct 2018 10:51:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1538934030.4010.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> In-Reply-To: <1538934030.4010.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: "jonsmirl@gmail.com" Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 13:50:57 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes To: James Bottomley Cc: daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, lkml , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org 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 On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 1:42 PM James Bottomley 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 > > 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