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 5EF0F825 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:21:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.26.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23FF07DE for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:21:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:12:57 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20181010161256.GB19941@amd> References: <1538861738.4088.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1538934030.4010.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1538934030.4010.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 0/2] code of conduct fixes List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! > > Personally I'm not happy at all with how the new code of conduct was > > rushed in, least because I still don't understand why it happened, > > but also for all the other reasons we've discussed here in the past > > few weeks. These are exactly my thoughts. > > But I also understand that there's lots of people (me included) who > > don't want to ship a release with the code of conduct in it's current > > in-between state. I think adding a disclaimer at the top, along the > > lines of > >=20 > > "Please note that this code of conduct and it's enforcement are still > > under discussion." >=20 > I don't disagree with the position, but eliminating our old code of > conduct in favour of another we cast doubt on with this disclaimer > effectively leaves us with nothing at all, which seems to be a worse > situation. In that case, I think reverting the CoC commit > (8a104f8b5867c682) and then restarting the replacement process is > better than adding a disclaimer to the new one. Reverting it then having proper discussion sounds suitable to me. (And it would be nice to have something on the mailing lists, too, as I probably won't make it to kernel summit this year.) Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlu+JQgACgkQMOfwapXb+vIJCACcDvJriHp4ANq5GSyQdbwoo2Cr RD0An1TkwQ/aNNJyxXEVtwDnoYQdKoor =qTWA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE--