From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Chris Mason To: Frank Rowand Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 19:15:16 +0000 Message-ID: <0F1E6845-9F6D-46E2-BB52-8B0C2D8103C6@fb.com> References: <1541721842.3774.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <35402D8E-0294-4E34-BE8B-22BCBC20BF66@fb.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: James Bottomley , Tech Board Discuss , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] TAB non-nomination List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 9 Nov 2018, at 11:54, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 11/8/18 7:30 PM, Chris Mason wrote: >> On 8 Nov 2018, at 16:04, James Bottomley wrote: >>> >>> Hind sight, though is always perfect. At the time, as a TAB member, >>> all you saw was a panic driven by both Linus and the Linux=20 >>> Foundation >>> that we needed an updated Kernel CoC ASAP, like today. >> >> I think panic is the wrong word to attach to Linus' response,=20 >> especially >> around the code of conduct. >> >>> >>> The second mistake was picking the wrong CoC. [ ... ] >>> >>> The third mistake was dumping the fully formed CoC and a later=20 >>> update >>> into the tree with little to no community input >> > >> The update was entirely based on community input. > > I am going to try to parse that sentence very carefully and narrowly. > > If you are saying that the update (that is,=20 > code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst) > then I would agree that the document appears to have been created > based on community input. But that is merely a conjecture on my part > since the document was created in a small closed group. > > If you are saying that the creation of=20 > code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst > was done in a process that was open and visible to the community, then > I would disagree. I don't know if this is what you meant to convey, > but it is very easy to interpret the sentence in this way. > Ted's earlier reply has a good summary, but the part I want to underline=20 is that we sought out people who strongly disagreed with us, and we did=20 our best to understand their concerns. It was important to me that we=20 give people a private channel to express themselves, especially=20 considering that the topic at hand was behavior on public lists. It was a tradeoff, but I was really happy with the number of people who=20 participated who might otherwise have stayed out of the discussion=20 completely. -chris