Re: [Ksummit-discuss] New CoC and Brendan Eich

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Fri, 2018-10-05 at 11:28 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:17:14AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-10-05 at 15:59 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > On Fri, 05 Oct 2018, Laurent Pinchart
> > > <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> > > > There are valid reasons for software to fork, I don't see why
> > > > there could be valid reasons for codes of conduct to fork.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps you're missing a "not" in there?
> > > 
> > > Some of the valid reasons to *not* fork codes of conduct are
> > > similar to why you shouldn't roll your own licenses. First,
> > > people don't want to keep reading and interpreting different
> > > texts for different projects, wondering what this means for them.
> > > Just read the familiar label and you know what's in the box.
> > > Second, as a community you can share the experiences and best
> > > practices with other projects using the same text.
> > > 
> > > I'm not saying we should stick to Contributor Covenant at all
> > > cost, I'm saying pick a suitable tried and tested code of
> > > conduct, and stick with it.
> > 
> > As I said on another thread: Zephyr jut adopted the contributor
> > covenant but stripped all the enforcement clauses:
> > 
> > https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/10356
> 
> No, they didn't. Someone proposed it, it has not been merged.

"someone" who happens to be the Zephyr community manager, yes.

> > I don't think when it comes to CoCs one size fits all so I can see
> > us making local patches that aren't upstream because upstream seems
> > to be concentrating more on the github than mailing list
> > communities.
> 
> I strongly suspect that upstream would welcome patches that clarify
> how it applies to mailing-list-based communities.

So that would argue the way to proceed is to make it work for us first
and then see if upstream wants it.

James