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 32B4CAAC for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 21:55:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from outbound1.eu.mailhop.org (outbound1.eu.mailhop.org [52.28.251.132]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AC9F7E3 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 21:55:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 21:55:37 +0000 From: Jason Cooper To: Chris Mason Message-ID: <20181110215537.GC9256@io.lakedaemon.net> References: <1541721842.3774.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <35402D8E-0294-4E34-BE8B-22BCBC20BF66@fb.com> <41b03a5b-1af4-0a87-2736-016f79d4d1ca@kernel.org> <20181109190305.GD21078@thunk.org> <20181109201700.GB9256@io.lakedaemon.net> <2C4B571B-A940-4B41-90C0-D1CE277EAAF0@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2C4B571B-A940-4B41-90C0-D1CE277EAAF0@fb.com> Cc: James Bottomley , Tech Board Discuss , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] better hot-topic discussion processes was: Re: TAB non-nomination List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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.