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 B34B21C7E for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 18:39:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50B147FC for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 18:39:52 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1538764789.25414.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Josh Triplett Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:39:49 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20181005182826.GA3981@localhost> References: <20181005075048.GA24138@localhost> <87efd4px5a.fsf@intel.com> <2795844.PlkHHhbf7z@avalon> <875zygpn10.fsf@intel.com> <1538752634.4380.3.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181005182826.GA3981@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] New CoC and Brendan Eich List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 > > > 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