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 92A7CD23 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 10:19:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1229B7C6 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 10:19:37 +0000 (UTC) From: Laurent Pinchart To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:19:49 +0300 Message-ID: <1594967.Nv1v5V7vai@avalon> In-Reply-To: <875zz0y8ym.fsf@intel.com> References: <875zz0y8ym.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: mchehab+samsung@kernel.org, Tim.Bird@sony.com, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com 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 Thursday, 20 September 2018 09:33:05 EEST Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 20 Sep 2018, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote: > > My view is that it's intended to be a social document, with guidelines > > for actions within the community (Actions by maintainers, actions > > by contributors, actions by the TAB). To me it's more like rules for > > a party at my house. If someone doesn't abide by the rules, I'll ask > > them to leave the party. And I'll ask others at the party to remind > > people to abide by the rules. But the person kicked out can hardly call > > the cops on me for doing so. > > Agreed. > > I think there's much more value in adopting a widely used code of > conduct than writing your own, or even trying to tweak it. If a project > uses the Contributor Covenant, you pretty much know the rules without > actually having to read another document and wonder what this all means. > In this regard, it's really not unlike the GPL for copyleft licenses; > one acronym tells you what you can and can't do. > > With that perspective, I think the changes proposed in this thread do > more harm than good. If people still insist the text should be improved, > I think the proper flow is to file issues or pull requests to > Contributor Covenant upstream [1], and later update to a new version of > the document. Or to add a FAQ next to the document that clarifies how the Linux kernel community interprets it. > [1] https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart