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 B9F1414E5 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:52:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9020979 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:52:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:52:29 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Message-ID: <20180920175229.4371ad58@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <1537279328.3424.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <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> <20180920072351.49c41618@coco.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.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: , Em Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:49:40 +0000 escreveu: > May I suggest that a more productive way to proceed is to keep > doing what you usually do. The TAB is working out the details > of enforcement policy, and a FAQ to go along with the CoC, that we > plan to present at the Maintainers Summit. I think the roll-out of > CoC enforcement will be a long, slow process, with plenty of > time for us to hash out what we, as a community, believe are the > best practices for dealing with violations. Good to know! I'm looking forward to see it and participate at the discussions there. As a side note, IMHO, this would be a way better handled if you had added the new CoC document with some top note on it explaining about that, and saying that the roll-out to the new CoC will happen only after having such FAQ discussed and merged upstream. > I think the vast majority of > the kernel community consists of respectful and well-meaning > individuals, who will see no negative repercussions personally, from > the adoption of this CoC. Yeah, fully agreed. The concept of having a CoC and be respectful is good. The only points I'm not happy is that this particular one doesn't seem to fit to our development model, as it was conceived with Github in mind. Thanks, Mauro