Re: [Ksummit-discuss] better hot-topic discussion processes was: Re: TAB non-nomination

[Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>]

Hi Chris,

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 07:26:55PM +0000, Chris Mason wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2018, at 12:17, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:03:05PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> >> So what was done with the update to the CoC was that a proposed set of
> >> changes was sent out to the top 200 or so contributors to the kernel,
> >> by git statistics over the past year, asking for their comments and
> >> their sign-offs.  So there *was* community input, and that input did
> >> result in changes to the CoC update.
> >>
> >> Could there be a better process?  I think we're all open to input.  If
> >> someone would like to suggest a better way to handle things, that
> >> would be great.  I will disclose upfront, though, that I will have to
> >> politely disagree with the proposition that completely free and open
> >> discussion is always the magic bullet solution.
> >
> > Ok, I'll take a stab at that. :)
> >
> > I'll make the assumption that there was nothing said in the "invited"
> > discussion that the speaker would object to being a matter of public
> > record.
> 
> I'm snipping the rest because you lost me right here ;)

In light of your other, slightly more verbose email (venue for objectors
to speak freely), I agree.  I was not aware that was a primary reason
for the "community, but non-public" discussion.

That is a tremendously valuable aspect of the decision, that I'd not
seen conveyed clearly until your email.  Thanks for sharing it.

thx,

Jason.