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 415E51105 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:36:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F04B1A0 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:36:14 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 09:35:50 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Hannes Reinecke Message-ID: <20180926093550.322387de@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: <44f5df3c-601e-11c0-95cc-05a80c503ced@suse.com> References: <1537830902.4935.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <87k1n8vjef.fsf@intel.com> <20180926091951.GB30730@quack2.suse.cz> <44f5df3c-601e-11c0-95cc-05a80c503ced@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , James Bottomley , olof@lxom.net Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH-TOPIC] Review - Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Em Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:58:35 +0200 Hannes Reinecke escreveu: > On 9/26/18 11:19 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed 26-09-18 09:54:00, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Joe Perches wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 16:15 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > >>>> as a maintainer, I'm happy to try to police > >>>> civility by calling adverse behaviours out on the list > >>> > >>> Good for you, but that's not necessarily something others > >>> might want to do. Nor should have to. > >> > >> I think the only way any code of conduct is ever going to work is > >> top-down, with maintainers leading by example, both in terms of > >> following and enforcing the CoC. It's not going to work bottom-up, nor > >> with everyone always involving the TAB directly. For the most part, it's > >> just a matter of explicitly asking people to be civil anyway. > >> > >> This may well be the biggest reason the "code of conlict" did not > >> succeed, despite the large number of acks. > > > > One thing I'm missing: Did "code of conflict" really fail? I find the areas > > which I follow (filesystems and surroundings) pretty civil but so they were > > even before "code of conflict"... So maybe I miss some events? > > > I can only agree here. > So far I haven't had any evidence of a massive breakdown of civility, > and in fact nothing which would warrant extra steps. > Plus it would really help to figure out which _specific_ problem the CoC > is actually trying to solve; this would help to focus the entire discussion. +1. I'm not aware of any big thing at the media ML those days that caused me a major concern (we used to have a lot in the past). My feeling is that things have been improved. Ok, LKML is a different beast, but who actually read all messages there those days? Thanks, Mauro