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 C74FB9F8 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 16:27:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E7447FE for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 16:27:59 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1538670475.4003.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Shuah Khan , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , clm@fb.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, Jonathan Corbet , olof@lxom.net, rostedt@goodmis.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 09:27:55 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH-TOPIC] Review - Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 08:24 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > I have been trying to follow various threads on this topic and none > of them address the review of this patch that went in. There is no > mistake in the title of this topic. I do consider this topic to be > more general than limited to Maintainer Summit. Hence, the choice of > a wider Technical designation. > > So I am kicking off a thread to do the review with my comments. I am > in general agreement with the spirit of this change to the existing > "Code of Conflict". Just as an FYI, the Zephyr project recently included the contributor covenant CoC minus the enforcement clause. They did a standard github PR for this: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/10356 They note that they may add more enforcement details when the community agrees on them. James