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 0B53C16A0 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 18:28:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.196]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A7B0108 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 18:28:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:28:27 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20181005182826.GA3981@localhost> References: <20181005075048.GA24138@localhost> <87efd4px5a.fsf@intel.com> <2795844.PlkHHhbf7z@avalon> <875zygpn10.fsf@intel.com> <1538752634.4380.3.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1538752634.4380.3.camel@HansenPartnership.com> 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 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 > 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.