From: <Tim.Bird@sony.com>
To: <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
<ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 13:51:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ECADFF3FD767C149AD96A924E7EA6EAF80517411@USCULXMSG01.am.sony.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1538883209.4088.14.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
> -----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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-08 13:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
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 [this message]
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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ECADFF3FD767C149AD96A924E7EA6EAF80517411@USCULXMSG01.am.sony.com \
--to=tim.bird@sony.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).