From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF62ED12 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:02:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3B5E8D for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:02:11 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1537279328.3424.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Dave Airlie , ksummit Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:02:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC FOR KS] CoC and Linus position (perhaps undocumented/closed/limited/invite session) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2018-09-18 at 15:55 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > Hey, > > Allow me to open this large can of worms I find sitting in front of > me, I'm not sure where it came from and I certainly didn't own it > last week. > > I'm unlikely to be able to produce a trip to Edinburgh (even > Vancouver might be touch and go, travel budgets and family > commitments don't always line up). > > I think there might be place for a report from the people who did > sign off the CoC about the thoughts/process involved in updating it > (and/or urgency) to the rest of the Maintainer group. > > Now I understand that having a public talk about such a thing will > likely descend into farce, there may be scope for something of a > Chatham House Rule style meeting, or just a non-recorded, non-public > session like we've done for sensitive subjects are previous kernel > summits. > > It might just be a readout from a similar meeting at Edinburgh summit > (maybe someone else can propose that), or maybe some sort of Q&A > session. Maybe Linus could record a piece to camera for the > maintainers that can't make Edinburgh, but would still like to > understand where everything currently sits. Said piece would of > course be burned afterwards. I'll let the people who signed off on it address this. > After the past 2-3 days I get the feeling there are maintainers > unsure about how this affects them and I think assuaging those fears > might be a good thing. > > (Daniel and I have worked under the freedesktop CoC for graphics > projects for over a year now, so this actually doesn't affect me in > any way I haven't already considered over a year ago, when I > signed'off introducing a CoC to the drm subsystem). > > I'm also equally happy nailing the lid back on the can of worms and > never discussing it again. >>From my perspective, which is probably fairly widespread: we're already pretty much policing the lists using a set of rules which match fairly closely to the new CoC, so there should really be no huge impact. The can of worms is that you can endlessly debate CoCs. I don't think this one is the best we could have chosen because it separates behaviour into "contributing to positive environment" and "unacceptable" but we have a lot of borderline problem behaviour that isn't mentioned at all: things like being excessively nit picking in reviews; being unable or unwilling to reach a compromise in a code related dispute. However, I think I'd rather have a root canal than a debate on how to amend the new CoC, so I think it's good enough, lets just go with it. James