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 6CF67D07 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 07:01:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.195]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56AEBB0 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 07:01:10 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:01:01 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Jani Nikula Message-ID: <20180920070100.GA21848@localhost> References: <20180918162948.769dda1d@coco.lan> <1537356482.4640.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20180919083749.49268562@coco.lan> <20180919090332.723c1b75@coco.lan> <1537366581.6816.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20180919165552.0f30bbef@coco.lan> <20180919210122.694bf4a3@coco.lan> <875zz0y8ym.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <875zz0y8ym.fsf@intel.com> Cc: mchehab+samsung@kernel.org, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, Tim.Bird@sony.com, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org 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 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.