Re: [Ksummit-discuss] New CoC and Brendan Eich

[Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>]

On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:17:14AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-10-05 at 15:59 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Oct 2018, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.
> > com> wrote:
> > > There are valid reasons for software to fork, I don't see why there
> > > could be valid reasons for codes of conduct to fork.
> > 
> > Perhaps you're missing a "not" in there?
> > 
> > Some of the valid reasons to *not* fork codes of conduct are similar
> > to why you shouldn't roll your own licenses. First, people don't want
> > to keep reading and interpreting different texts for different
> > projects, wondering what this means for them. Just read the familiar
> > label and you know what's in the box. Second, as a community you can
> > share the experiences and best practices with other projects using
> > the same text.
> > 
> > I'm not saying we should stick to Contributor Covenant at all cost,
> > I'm saying pick a suitable tried and tested code of conduct, and
> > stick with it.
> 
> As I said on another thread: Zephyr jut adopted the contributor
> covenant but stripped all the enforcement clauses:
> 
> https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/10356

No, they didn't. Someone proposed it, it has not been merged.

> I don't think when it comes to CoCs one size fits all so I can see us
> making local patches that aren't upstream because upstream seems to be
> concentrating more on the github than mailing list communities.

I strongly suspect that upstream would welcome patches that clarify how
it applies to mailing-list-based communities.