Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC FOR KS] CoC and Linus position (perhaps undocumented/closed/limited/invite session)

[Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 09:33:05AM +0300, 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.

Seconded. I've seen many changes accepted upstream, and it seems
reasonable to start there first.

To the extent we need any kernel-specific process clarifications that
*can't* usefully go upstream, I would suggest keeping them in a separate
document.