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 D4C05DA2 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 02:37:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7264334F for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 02:37:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 23:37:05 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20181010233705.12f0f727@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: <1539202180.12644.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <1539202053.12644.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1539202180.12644.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-kernel , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 2/3] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:09:40 -0700 James Bottomley escreveu: > Significant concern has been expressed about the responsibilities outline= d in > the enforcement clause of the new code of conduct. Since there is concern > that this becomes binding on the release of the 4.19 kernel, strip the > enforcement clauses to give the community time to consider and debate how= this > should be handled. >=20 > Note, this patch is expected to be the starting point for a discussion no= t the > end point, so there is an expectation that an Enforcement section will be > added again to our code of conduct once we have sufficient community cons= ensus > on what it should say. >=20 > Fixes: 8a104f8b5867c682 ("Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.") > Acked-by: Shuah Khan > Acked-by: Guenter Roeck > Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven > Reviewed-by: Alan Cox > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley Reviewed-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab I still think that this series should contain a 4th patch removing "responsibilities" with that text proposed by Alan. E. g. instead of: Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject it should say, instead: Maintainers should remove, edit or reject >=20 > --- >=20 > v2: Added additional commit paragraph clarifying we do expect eventually = to > have an enforcement section (as requested by Shuah) > --- > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 15 --------------- > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) >=20 > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/pr= ocess/code-of-conduct.rst > index aa40e34e7785..4dd90987305b 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst > @@ -59,21 +59,6 @@ address, posting via an official social media account,= or acting as an appointed > representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a projec= t may be > further defined and clarified by project maintainers. > =20 > -Enforcement > -=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > - > -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may = be > -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at > -. All complaints will be reviewed and > -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and > -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain > -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further det= ails of > -specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. > - > -Maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good fai= th may > -face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members= of the > -project=E2=80=99s leadership. > - > Attribution > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > =20 Thanks, Mauro