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 5E00BCCB for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:04:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFB0DA3 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:04:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 16:04:14 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Thomas Gleixner Message-ID: <20181004160414.20c72c21@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: References: <6108593.JtmfA2IdsK@avalon> <20181004203956.GR32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20181004145631.5d1c3fb2@lwn.net> 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 23:27:33 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > 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. > > It does. Alice is banned from the mailing list, but still posts the > roothole fix to LKML and Cc's the maintainer according to the rules. LKML > drops the post, but the maintainer still gets it. Now what is he supposed > to do? Ignore it, because he forgot to add Alice to his /dev/null filter? Again, I don't think anybody is envisioning telling maintainers that they cannot accept patches from a given individual over conduct issues, and I've certainly heard no talk of trying to mandate email filters. I don't understand who you think might be telling the maintainer not to apply such a patch..? One fairly common approach to conduct problems is to have the person involved work through somebody who is willing to deal with them for a while. This sounds kind of like that sort of scenario. The community needs to figure out how it wants to handle the disciplinary side of things should we ever have a case where trying to talk to the person involved isn't enough. I suppose that *could* involve a blanket refusal to accept that person's patches under any circumstances, but I don't think I've ever seen that in the past except in cases where there were issues with the patches themselves. I would be surprised to see that change. In any case, this scenario is one thing to keep in mind as we work all this out. jon