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 25FD4D78 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 20:56:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6AA012E for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 20:56:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:56:31 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Al Viro Message-ID: <20181004145631.5d1c3fb2@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <20181004203956.GR32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <6108593.JtmfA2IdsK@avalon> <20181004203956.GR32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] New CoC and Brendan Eich List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 21:39:57 +0100 Al Viro wrote: > * contributor Alice gets banned from contributing, for whatever reason > * Alice finds a roothole and posts a technically valid fix > * maintainer Bob sees the posting, verifies that the bug is real, that > the fix is correct and that the source of that patch is banned. So, while remedies under the CoC are yet to be determined in any sort of detail, I don't believe I have heard anybody talk about banning the acceptance of patches from anybody. Speaking only for myself, I have a hard time seeing that happening in the absence of other sorts of concerns (the event where a would-be contributor started sending under a sock puppet name because nobody would consider his work anymore comes to mind). What *is* common under CoCs in various projects is banning from specific fora, such as this mailing list. But that is a different thing and doesn't bring about the scenario described above. jon