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 68B71312D for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:32:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pl1-f195.google.com (mail-pl1-f195.google.com [209.85.214.195]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF1E46E0 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:32:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f195.google.com with SMTP id f8-v6so12731665plb.2 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 06:32:39 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Guenter Roeck To: Geert Uytterhoeven , Josh Triplett References: <20181017071902.30102-1-geert@linux-m68k.org> <20181017091325.GA15991@localhost> From: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <1a51fc4c-882c-59ef-7497-262e595af10e@roeck-us.net> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 06:32:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, tomi.valkeinen@iki.fi Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list of discrimination factors List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 10/17/2018 02:31 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Josh, > > Thanks for your comments! > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:13 AM Josh Triplett wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 09:19:01AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> Providing an explicit list of discrimination factors may give the false >>> impression that discrimination based on other unlisted factors would be >>> allowed. >> >> This impression is, in fact, false, as has already been discussed >> elsewhere. I had hoped that discussion would suffice. > > The CoC FAQ is not part of the CoC, and not part of the Linux kernel. > If the CoC is imprecise, it should be fixed in the CoC, not in a separate > document hosted elsewhere, as discussed elsewhere. > > Comparison with the GPL and the GPL FAQ is not appropriate, as the GPL > is still the precise legal document, while its FAQ is a clarification using > laymen's terms. > >> As mentioned there: The original commit explicitly said "Explicit >> guidelines have demonstrated success in other projects and other areas >> of the kernel."; this is precisely the kind of explicit guideline it > > Given the original commit was not submitted for and objected to public > review, nobody had the chance to question these statements, and ask for > pointers of proof, which would surely have happened. > >> refers to. Listing explicit cases to cover does not imply other cases >> are not covered; > > It does, if not accompanied by "examples of...", like in the other sections. > >> it does, however, ensure that the listed cases *are*, >> and helps people know that they're covered. > > So you agree people cannot know if the unlisted cases are covered or not? > >> This patch is not OK, and defeats one of the purposes of the original >> change. > > So the purpose of the original change was to list a number of factors, > without saying that it was just a list of examples? One could consider adding something like "discrimination factors such as", or maybe "or any other discrimination factors not listed here" to the original text. Or a simple "regardless of, for example, ...". Guenter